Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 146

Archive 140

←

Archive 144

Archive 145

Archive 146

Archive 147

Archive 148

→

Archive 150

Replacing "Wharton School" with "University of Pennsylvania"

Isn't "University of Pennsylvania" the standard? Just wondering. GuardianH (for some reason, the sign function isn't working for me).

Unsure, as it seems to take great pains to separate itself. Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

See other discussion above Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 145#Modifying consensus item 18 WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

No, Wharton is branded separately and the school and its program are widely known and known to be affiliated with University of Pennsylvania. Moreover Trump the businessman has branded himself as a Wharton grad. It's not like a major in French or Chinese. It is a separate division. SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

CEOWorld rated Wharton the third best business school in the world in 2022.[1] While there is some subjectivity in this, there is general consensus it is in the top 10. It's a well known school and generally just referred to as the Wharton School. There are some schools that although part of universities are usually referred to by their specific names. TFD (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The London School of Economics (LSE) is part of the University of London, but is also normally referred to by itself. TFD (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't find a page where a graduate of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsyvlania is listed as "Wharton School." See the pages for Elon Musk, Warren Buffett, etc. All of the pages use "University of Pennsyvlania" instead of "Wharton School." It's similar to how a graduate of, say, Harvard Law School is listed as, for example, "Harvard University (JD)" instead of "Harvard Law School (JD)." GuardianH (talk) 02:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Buffett didn't graduate from Wharton, he transferred to the University of Nebraska after two years. By the standards of this page, the University of Pennsylvania shouldn't be mentioned in the infobox (we don't mention Trump's two years at Fordham University). Musk was simultaneously enrolled at another University of Pennsylvania college (College of Arts & Sciences) and obtained a Bachelor of Arts, majoring in physics. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• This is already being discussed above. This should probably be procedurally closed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

A random check of List of Wharton School alumni shows that Wharton is more likely to be listed in their info-boxes than UPenn. We had a similar discussion about Trump's place of birth, which is listed as "Queens, New York City, U.S." Reasonably informed people can name all of NYC's boroughs and know that NYC is in New York State. There is no policy or guideline that says articles must be consistent, but we should use the same description found in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

False statements

Anythingyouwant, none of the sources say that it was a challenge, major or otherwise, for the media to distinguish falsehoods from mere falsities. Both words indicate untruths/untrue statements without indicating whether intent to deceive is or isn't involved. Journalists shied away from calling them lies since, by definition, the word implies awareness of falsity and intent to deceive? How can journalists know what’s in Trump’s mind, even when he repeatedly says transparently untrue things (your WaPo source). Per consensus item 22, we cannot call Trump a liar or call his falsehoods lies. IMO that includes using the definition of lie, i.e., uttering a falsehood with intent to deceive. We shouldn't be using either one of these sentences without a new consensus: His falsehoods (which are intentional as distinguished from falsities which may be unintentional) became a distinctive part of his political identity (version Anythingyouwant), His intentional falsehoods (as distinguished from counterfactual statements which might be unintentional) became a distinctive part of his political identity (version SPECIFICO). Also, do we want to get into dictionary definitions? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

A falsehood is a lie. A falsity is not necessarily a lie. If consensus item 22 says we shouldn’t be calling Trump a liar, then we shouldn’t be saying he has uttered falsehoods. Since we cannot get into Trump’s head and determine his intentions, I support only referring in this article to his falsities, not his falsehoods. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

That's WP:OR and your opinion "we shouldn't..." is contrary to longstanding consensus after discussion and careful consideration by many many editors here. IMO the whole bit should come out. I tried to fix Anythingyouwant's version, but it's still against the consensus -- thanks for reminding us SpaceX. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

That's one definition of falsehood. Others are "something that is not true", "absence of truth or accuracy", "a false belief, theory, idea, etc.", "lack of conformity to truth or fact; inaccuracy". After your initial edit, adding the op-eds in parentheses to the sentence His falsehoods (which are deliberately false) and falsities (which may not be deliberately false) became a distinctive part of his political identity was challenged, you reinserted it with minor rephrasing 10 hours later, without discussing it on the Talk page per the ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES (24 BRD cycle). Way to go! Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

This move came after the recent lifting of their tban. Maybe it should be reinstated. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks User:Space4Time3Continuum2x for pointing out that 24-hour rule. I haven’t edited this article in many years and didn’t notice it. So I reverted my edits. As for the word “falsehood” it has very strong connotations of lying, unlike the word falsity. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but it only means the statement is false and says nothing about motives. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The leading definition of “falsehood” in the Merriam Webster Dictionary includes the word “lie.”[2]. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

All lies are falsehoods, but not all falsehoods are lies. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Nope, see here. The noun “falsehood” can be used in a countable way or an uncountable way; for example, “Falsehood is common where knowledge is lacking” is uncountable. In the countable sense (“Joe spewed falsehoods”), the word “falsehood” is primarily about lies. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

What is that source, vocabulary for elementary and junior high school kids? The problem with your edits is that they’re not supported by the sources. The sources don't discuss the merits of falsehood versus falsity, and neither one calls one of Trump's statement a "falsity". Farhi/WaPo Style uses the word once, in a definition of "lie": Could a presidential statement, no matter how blatantly false, be deemed a "lie" since, by definition, the word implies awareness of falsity and intent to deceive?. That's falsity in the uncountable sense, I believe. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The leading definition of “falsity” in the Merriam Webster Dictionary also includes the word “lie.”[3]. QED. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Good point! The policy stated at the top of this article is “Do not call Trump a ‘liar’ in Wikipedia's voice.” Presumably that means we shouldn’t say in Wikipedia’s voice that he told a lie, nor anything synonymous with “lie.” So there needs to be a lot of editing in this BLP to satisfy our rule, correct? Or we could change the rule. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Do we, qoute. Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, if there are specific wordings you think are in violation, why not mention them here? Let's work on it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The section titled “False statements” is the one that concerns me. If we mean lies, then we should say lies, but then we would have to modify the rule 22 at the top of this page. The problem with saying “falsehoods” is that many people would interpret that to mean lies (contrary to rule 22) whereas many people would interpret to merely mean untruths (or exaggerations or something else that doesn’t imply downright dishonesty). So what I’m advocating is simply that we be clear, regardless of whether that helps Trump or hurts Trump. That said, I really do feel like a newbie here (having been gone away so long), so I would rather let others ponder this issue who have more experience, and maybe I’ll chime in or circle back. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

When we write "false statements", we mean statements that are false. When we write "Trump's falsehoods", we mean it, IOW his statements that are not true. We don't get into the weeds of his motives, so I don't see any problems with a single word in that section. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

You may mean untruths regardless of intention but that is not what many people will infer from the word falsehood. So why not use a word that clearly conveys your meaning? Way back in the early 1990s, I submitted a manuscript to a scientific journal, and mentioned in my cover letter (or maybe it was in the manuscript itself) that the journal’s editor had written a falsehood in an article of his, and all hell broke loose. I got an incredibly nasty letter from the journal editor telling me how horrible I was to accuse him of lying, when actually I had meant no such thing. But if you want to keep using a word that many people will misunderstand, and will misunderstand in a way that violates our rule #22, then I hope you’ll reconsider. Cheers, Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

So we do not use the word lies, or accuse him of telling lies, just of saying things that are not true (which may be mistakes, not lies). All of which is well srouced. Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

It would be better to call him a liar who tells lies instead of using a fuzzy word (falsehoods) that very often means the same thing. Clear writing is not difficult. Anyway, if we keep using the word falsehoods then that requires a change to our rule #22. Or we could comply with rule #22 by using a word like “untruths” or “inaccuracies” or “exaggerations” or “misstatements” which no one will misconstrue as “lies”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, when you write "It would be better to call him a liar who tells lies instead of using a fuzzy word (falsehoods) that very often means the same thing.", you are telling us to violate rule #22 by taking sides and ourselves determining his motives. It's best for us to use the more vague and all-inclusive word which includes anything false, whether it's an outright lie or just untrue. We reserve "calling him a liar" for well-sourced uses of the words "liar" or "lies". We are not violating rule #22 with our current wordings. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding occasions where this Wikipedia article currently uses the word “falsehood” in Wikipedia’s voice, there are at least five alternatives.

• First, we could keep doing so and thus give many readers the reasonable impression we are calling him a liar, thus violating rule #22.
• Second, we could erase rule #22, so it is no longer an issue.
• Third, we could speak more clearly by using the word “lie” instead of “falsehood” which would still violate rule #22 but would have the advantage of forthrightness and clarity.
• Fourth, we could switch “falsehood” to something that doesn’t suggest to anyone whether or not he’s lied, such as the word “untruth” or “misstatement” or “exaggeration” or “mistake” or the like.
• Fifth, we could rephrase statements about his untruths that are currently in Wikipedia’s voice so they are no longer in Wikipedia’s voice, e.g. by using in-text attribution.

I think the worst options would be the first and the third, because then we would be violating our own rule #22. So I recommend the second, fourth, or fifth alternatives. But if we must choose the first or third, then the third seems much better to me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

No. Period. We are not responsible for readers' own "impression we are calling him a liar" when we are not doing so. We are deliberately using a word often used by RS that can be interpreted either way, and it is the the readers' own responsibility which way they interpret it.

I'm beginning to wonder if there is some language difficulty issue here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

A word that is defined by dictionaries using the term “lie” is quite different from a word that is defined by dictionaries without the word “lie.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The order of the definitions may not mean what you think ... All the senses of a word that are listed are equal, and not in a George-Orwellesque all-words-are-equal-but-some-are-more-equal-than-others sort of way. Merriam Webster. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The order of definitions in Merriam Webster is oldest definition first.[4]. Whatever we do, we should be clear, and also compliant with the rules for this page. Including the 24 hour rule. :-) Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

We can say he made false statements or uttered falsehoods because RS tell us he did. There also came a point, after long hesitation, where RS started calling him a liar and saying he was telling lies because there was so much information and debunking in existence that he had to have known that what he was saying was not true. He simply doesn't care. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Right, if RS say it so can we. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

We have a whole article detailing the lack of veracity for Trump's statements. The longstanding version should be reinstated. If we want to ADD an explanation about why the media changed their policy, that could be ADDED as good content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

We'd be better off waiting until he begins his campaign for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. I'm certain there'll be plenty of sourced material to add, by then. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

If someone ought to know that what they are saying is not true, is that a lie? Major media sources thought so and literally changed their policy and started calling Trump's false statements "lies". WaPo's fact-checkers even had to create a new category of lies because of Trump.

He is part of a rare class of liars who will repeat debunked lies. Normal people don't want to be classed as liars, so they don't repeat a lie when exposed. Trump's tactic is different as he doubles down using Hitler's (his mentor) Big Lie propaganda technique.

I said "rare" but that is no longer true. GOP politicians have adopted his methods for several reasons: he gets away with it, so they hope to do the same; he pressures them to as a loyalty test; they are compromised/blackmailed, so they abandon any sense of honesty. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know whether he's a rare class of liars who will repeat debunked lies. That applies to quite a few GOP members of Congress these days. And striking opinion. We do mention Trump's use of the Big Lie, in the second paragraph of Donald_Trump#Post-presidency_(2021–present). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Feels a little like we've been given homework — "I'll give you a topic. Discuss." Without new RS to support a change to consensus item 22, I’m not inclined to do any pondering. The cite Anything added is a 2019 article by WaPo's media reporter on the news media's terminology for Trump's "many questionable utterances". It doesn't support the sentence, and the media rarely referring to Trump's untruths as lies is mentioned in the fifth paragraph. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

This whole discussion is pointless. Wikipedia content is based on what Reliable Sources say. It is not based on our interpretation of dictionary definitions. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

If a reliable source says Trump “lied” then our rule 22 says we should not say he lied using Wikipedia’s voice. But we could say that the reliable source says he lied. Correct? I would think that the same applies to synonyms of “liar” (e.g. “fabulist”). Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 June 2022

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

---

I noticed that in the article you mentioned that Donald Trump was wrong in his claims that the election was stolen, but the recent documentary 2000 Mules showed that in fact Trump was correct in his claim Ragnar Danneskjöld 7 (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Sources overwhelmingly call it false. — Czello 14:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

2000 Mules has also been widely debunked, see 2000_Mules#Reception. — Czello 14:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Czello What sources? The same that were biased in their coverage of Trump and don't criticize Biden for similar things Trump did? Partisan news networks? Or unbiased sources? How would you know which sources are unbiased regarding Trump? Because CNN may be a reliable source for say Tom Cruise reporting, but not about Trump reporting.Thinker78 (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The sources are listed in the article, and are all sources we consider reliable. Sources themselves aren't obligated to be unbiased as long as we consider them reliable, see WP:BIASED. — Czello 16:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, you have a point about WP:BIASED. But still now we need to determine if the sources that overwhelmingly call it false are biased or not. Why? As you pointed out, bias doesn't mean they are not reliable, but if they are biased and reliable nevertheless they are just giving one point of view, possibly rendering information not neutral. The question is, are there reliable sources that indicate the possibility the election was stolen or that there was a certain degree of fraud? Thinker78 (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2022 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2022

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.

---

There are two areas that are politically biased conjecture and not fact.

1. "falsely claiming widespread electoral fraud and attempting to overturn the results by pressuring government officials, mounting scores of unsuccessful legal challenges, and obstructing the presidential transition. On January 6, 2021, Trump urged his supporters to march to the Capitol, which many of them then attacked, resulting in multiple deaths and interrupting the electoral vote count."

1a. The claim of electoral fraud is currently being investigated, which is what should be noted, and not that it is false. This is conjecture. The statement that former President Trump "urged supports to march to the Capitol" is misleading, as it is missing context and seeks to paint a politically skewed picture.

2. "Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history.[1]"

2a. This statement is patently false, and uses a politically biased source to make the claim. The accurate answer is that Trump is a controversial figure, with some ranking him low, and others high, depending on political affiliation and beliefs on his policies.

3. "Trump was slow to address the spread of the disease, initially dismissing the imminent threat and ignoring persistent public health warnings and calls for action from health officials within his administration and Secretary Azar.[476][477] Instead, throughout January and February he focused on economic and political considerations of the outbreak.[478] "

3a. Again, this is patently false. President Trump at the time attempted to enact a travel ban from countries experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks, but it was deemed 'racist' by Congress and subsequently repealed. Context is missing here.

4. "Trump established the White House Coronavirus Task Force on January 29, 2020.[492] Beginning in mid-March, Trump held a daily task force press conference, joined by medical experts and other administration officials,[493] sometimes disagreeing with them by promoting unproven treatments.[494] Trump was the main speaker at the briefings, where he praised his own response to the pandemic, frequently criticized rival presidential candidate Joe Biden, and denounced the press.[493][495] On March 16, he acknowledged for the first time that the pandemic was not under control and that months of disruption to daily lives and a recession might occur.[496] His repeated use of the terms "Chinese virus" and "China virus" to describe COVID-19 drew criticism from health experts.[497][498][499]"

4a. The political skewing here is quite obvious, and Wikipedia must remain apolitical to be a true source of valid information. While these actions occurred, this paragraph was written with clear bias, ignoring the positive aspects of the news conferences regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. There is also no mention whatsoever about the time and resources poured into the creation of the COVID vaccines.

Wikipedia is here to be an medium for factual information, not a politically skewed blog. I review for several academic journals, and I am a Libertarian, but I keep politics out of my writing. This whole article is nothing but a sloppily written political hit piece. Please correct this article (there are many more examples that I did not touch on) to make it apolitical, and add the positive aspects along with the negative to paint a clear and accurate picture of Donald J. Trump. RigidScholar89 (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

All issues raised are reliably sourced, all have been discussed several times in the last few months. Make use of the link above to the talk page archives. Zaathras (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

please close given the lack of RS citation this is a lot of WP:SOAP NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

RigidScholar89 I advice you to check how to do a proper edit request (WP:EDITREQ) to have more chances of getting your edits included. You can open a discussion thread to discuss the issues you believe are going on, although expect animosity from some editors.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Thinker78 (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2022 (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.

Health habits - Bornstein

SPECIFICO, you're right about this. The last discussion was in March. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Whew. 👩‍🚀 Thanks, SPECIFICO talk 15:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

False information throughout his bio.

This bio is a hit job and is full of misinformation. 2600:4040:B125:2C00:D461:1696:3B78:1485 (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Name one piece of "misinformation". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

As a non-American who is bombarded with negative media about the man. ....I do see a tone problem. Article come off heavy like a non authorized biography over an encyclopedia entry. Full of media sources...that said hopefully we are reaching a point were academic publications can assess the historical person over our current media version..... Obama is slowly getting cleaned up in this matter. Moxy- 00:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Our bios are supposed to be "non authorized" biographies. We do not write hagiographies, and no one's reputation should be "cleaned up", IOW we do not allow whitewashing. We document the facts and opinions, positive and negative, about the person using all types of reliable sources, including media sources and academic publications.

If you find inaccuracies and point them out, we will thank you, but griping and making accusations is not constructive. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

You are correct the the narrative here reflects American Media sources....just saying once academic sources are published with a historical view the article can move from media regurgitation to academic research ability. Moxy- 03:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

We welcome such sourcing and perspective. It will nicely supplement the historical record provided by journalists. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

You are correct again... despite the difference between journalism and historical views they can coexist....it's the sound bites I guess that feel off..TWO SIDES OF THE STORY: HOW HISTORIANS AND JOURNALISTS CAN WORK TOGETHER Shuang Wen Oct 1, 2015 Moxy- 03:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Nice. Feel free to provide any good source material and the parts that are relevant for this article topic. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Julian E. Zelizer, ed. (12 April 2022). The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: A First Historical Assessment. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-22894-5. OCLC 1260172139. Moxy- 05:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

That book is consistent with, but less euphemistic than, our WP article. SPECIFICO talk 08:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. The point being made here makes no sense, as academic historical opinion of Trump is overwhelmingly negative, even moreso than that of journalists. This article is, in fact, significantly more positive about Trump's presidency than reliable sources actually warrant. 173.56.203.56 (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't most of the essays in the book be considered opinions for our purposes? It's not as if, for example, Trump being the "product of long-term trends in Republican politics and American polarization more broadly" hasn't been mentioned by various opinion writers, many of whom are also academics, in "media sources". Zelizer, BTW, is a CNN political analyst (presumably paid) and a regular guest on NPR (unpaid?), i.e., also a "media source". (I haven't read the book, just looked at the contributors in the table of contents and the description of content and author on Amazon.) Moxy, as Valjean said, what are some of the "negative media" or "tone problems" that need cleaning up? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

"Wouldn't most of the essays in the book be considered opinions for our purposes?" No. And if there is any "tone problem" with the present article, it is that it is excessively generous to Trump given actual media and academic assessment of his presidency in reliable sources. 173.56.203.56 (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

In the Donald Trump page as in any other page all it takes is for a large enough group of biased, like-minded editors to take ownership, quashing any edits that don't reflect their bias. That's the huge weakness of Wikipedia.Thinker78 (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Once again, if anything, “like-minded editors” have bent over backwards to present Trump’s presidency in a far more positive and euphemistic light than reliable sources warrant, due largely to spurious complaints like this one that fail to demonstrate any problem in what the article says or its sources. 173.56.203.56 (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Trump's salary ?

I learned that from 2016 to 2020, Trump served without money. Why do I see the whatever information Trump's salary in this article ?

In addition, in his term, this is 4 years without new war. Why they didn't mention it ?

Resource: 1, https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/02/27/president-donald-trump-probably-donated-his-entire-16m-salary-back-to-the-us-government--here-are-the-details/?sh=55e8fdd31a8d

113.188.106.56 (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

This article is about Donald Trump the person, whereas you are discussing the Presidency of Donald Trump. ––FormalDude talk 02:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Don't know what you're posting about. Which is why 'twice', I deleted your post. GoodDay (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I hope some will write down about it. This is a clear-cut evidence why Trump is one of the best president in history. Whatever the smearing, I think It still take a little bit of more time for the population to understand completely about Trump.

113.188.106.56 (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Presidents Herbert Hoover and John F. Kennedy also donated their salaries, and it's unclear whether Trump even donated half of his salary for his last year in office. 4 years without new war or new "authorizations of military force" — same as Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, and Richard Nixon whose articles don't mention it either. He is now collecting (and not donating) $221,000 per year for the rest of his life, and the U.S. taxpayer is funding the rent Trump pays to himself for his use of office space at Mar-a-Lago as well as a budget for staff at that office. Also, you may want to find some better news sources than Facebook. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Facts

Many erroneous and untrue statements in this. Can tell the political affiliation of the author! Disgraceful 2600:2B00:970B:6500:F050:2B3A:169D:4F9E (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Everything in the article is well cited using reliable sources. If you feel there are individual statements you feel don't reflect the sources, you can list them here. — Czello 16:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Lead paragraphs

In my opinion, the format of the lede of the page at the time of this writing [5] does not comply with MOS:LEAD which states, "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate"; the page has six paragraphs. I tried to fix it [6], but User:Space4Time3Continuum2x reverted, with the explanation that my edit was "Not an improvement. The first few sentences should establish the subject’s notability. In Trump’s case there’s only one sentence doing that, needs to be separate from summary of education and career. His stand-alone, the two impeachments, need to stay in a separate paragraph." I will quote MOS:BEGIN, "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic".

Per Space4Time3Continuum2x's own opinion, "the first few sentences should establish the subject’s notability. In Trump’s case there’s only one sentence doing that". If there is only one sentence doing that, then even by their standard, we don't have it as a well-composed paragraph in the lede, in contradiction of what MOS:LEAD indicates that there should be. According to MOS:PARA, "single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text". Although in the page certainly the single-sentence paragraphs are minimized, there is still the issue that they can inhibit the flow of the text and, although it can denote emphasis, in writing generally paragraphs should consist of more than a single short sentence or be several lines long. I checked other president's pages (Lincoln, Roosevelt, Carter, Reagan, and Obama) at the time they were granted at least good article status, and none of them have more than four paragraphs in the lede, although Obama's has a short first paragraph.

My suggestion is to analyze whether it's the best practice to leave the first paragraph as a single-sentence or short paragraph and to copyedit and reform the lede in such a way as to at least comply with having four paragraphs per the standard of MOS:LEAD and don't break with the rest of presidential pages format of the lede.Thinker78 (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Most mobile readers... that is 70% of our viewership... will only scroll down one time...thus reading only one sentence because of the current layout with a one sentence paragraph and giant infobox data. Our mobile readers will simply move on to another website to obtain information and if they are American it will most likely be youtube, facebook or amazon that are full of junk info. Looking to retain readers fix the layout...its why we have an MoS. A one sentence paragraph is a journalistic style that is not really encyclopedic. Moxy- 21:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Thinker78, MOS:LEADLENGTH says that "As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs" and also that "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article." Of the presidents you mentioned, Reagan, Clinton, Obama, Roosevelt also have more than four paragraphs, and in FDR’s case two of those paragraphs ought to be split up into two each. (Then again, four terms, New Deal, World War II compared to Trump’s meager resume.)

Your edit summary said that you used Bill Clinton’s article as the model for merging the first and second paragraph. Clinton’s first paragraph does have four sentences but then, aside from two terms as president, he was also governor of Arkansas (two terms, non-consecutive) and husband of NY senator, secretary of state, and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. (IMO attorney general of Arkansas is not leadworthy, by comparison). Carter: governor of Georgia, Nobel Peace Prize for post-presidential humanitarian work. Obama: U.S. senator, first African-American president. Reagan: governor of California, fairly well-known Hollywood actor. FDR: elected president four times, New Deal, World War II. I’ll just quote Lincoln's entire first paragraph: Abraham Lincoln (/ˈlɪŋkən/ LINK-ən; February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865) was an American lawyer and statesman who served as the 16th president of the United States from 1861 until his assassination in 1865. Lincoln led the nation through the American Civil War and succeeded in preserving the Union, abolishing slavery, bolstering the federal government, and modernizing the U.S. economy. If we wanted to add something to Trump’s first paragraph, I would support adding the two impeachments, the incitement to insurrection, the false statements, the racist and misogynistic comments and actions, not the bachelor’s degree or working for his father.

Moxy, do you have sources for your statements of what Most mobile readers, 70 percent of our viewership do? Viewership, as in Nielsen ratings? Quoting from the most recent source (2019) mentioned on the linked Wikimedia draft page: How good is this data?

It has some limitations:

1. Missing older browsers (Android browser,chrome < 39, Safari, iOS < 11.3.
   
2. Respects “Do Not Track”
   
3. Anomalous large amount of missing data on mobile
   
4. Doesn’t perfectly capture “reading.” Only measures that the page is visible. (That doesn't capture "reading" at all, just "viewing".)
   

We collected sampled 0.1% of page views from 2017-11-20 through 2018-10-25

Just looking at the Current consensus should give you an idea how many times the lead has been discussed, and you'll find numerous other discussions in the currently 145 archives. IMO, the current version of the lead does its job serv[ing] as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents per MOS lead section. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, thanks for your reply. You stated, "MOS:LEADLENGTH says that "As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs" and also that "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article."" I understand it is not an absolute rule but your quote about the length doesn't appear to be relevant because Donald Trump is a long article that warrants four paragraphs. Besides, it has more than four. You also state, "Of the presidents you mentioned, Reagan, Clinton, Obama, Roosevelt also have more than four paragraphs". True, but I stated in my original post, "at the time they were granted at least good article status". You apparently read those pages in the current form, not the version at the time they were granted good article status. I included the links to the versions I checked. Regarding this proposal and its applicability to Donald Trump, "and in FDR’s case two of those paragraphs ought to be split up into two each", according to MOS:LEAD there should be no more than four paragraphs and well-composed on top of that. Therefore instead of making more than four paragraphs in the lead and splitting them because they contain too different info, maybe four well-composed paragraphs should be included with info that warrants staying in the same paragraph. After all, the pages are long enough to get proper material for the lead. Finally, I know it's not an absolute rule or policy, but generally it is a good idea to follow the guidelines to keep some order and proper format in the pages. Thinker78 (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The lead is fine as-is, without your changes. Also, it is rather difficult to take any suggestions you have made seriously, given your "BUT BIAS!" attacks on other editors here and especially here. Zaathras (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Zaathras, you stated, "The lead is fine as-is, without your changes." That's not how consensus is discussed. You need to state what guidelines and policies you base your opinion that is fine as it is. Arbitrarily saying it is fine just because you disagree with my criticism in other threads is inappropriate. Per WP:TALKDONTREVERT, "the arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever." Besides, in this thread I'm discussing layout, form, not content, so it is completely irrelevant the other discussions you point out.Thinker78 (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

There is no need for editors to continually defend the longstanding status quo every time an editor dissents. The onus is entirely on you to make simple clear compelling suggestions, one by one, and try to convince editors to accept them as new consensus. If you fail, the established text will remain and editors are under no obligation to respond to anything you offer here, most of all if it is assigning them unnecessary homework. SPECIFICO talk 15:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Certainly, there is no need for editors to continually defend the longstanding status quo, because they can contribute Wikipedia when they want, they are not under contractual obligations nor are they employees. If you think the page needs to stay static without giving explanations, that's your opinion, but neither you nor any given group of editors WP:OWN this page. I understand there is a consensus about the content of the lead, but not the form. I checked the enumerated consensus items before my edits. I presented my opinion for analysis of other editors. I have to add that many pages have not been compliant with policies or guidelines for years until someone noticed and made the relevant edit to fix the situation. So a status quo doesn't necessarily mean a page should stay that way.Thinker78 (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Thinker78:, you are owed nothing. If I have a preference for the current paragraph layout, that preference is not reliant on an intricate explanation. As for the other discussions, I linked them to give examples of your bad-faith behavior on this talk page. Zaathras (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Zaathras, it is not helpful to attack my integrity, specially throwing false accusations about my editing. The discussions I had that you pointed out were within my privileges as editor to discuss issues in the talk page. I like neutrality in articles and I simply expressed my opinion about problems this page may have and Wikipedia as a whole has. "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums." Per WP:FOC, "Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor." The reason why I replied to what you stated is because you publicly accused me falsely of bad-faith behavior. Now, I request that if you have any accusations against me and if you want to continue said topic, bring it to my talk page and I would follow the proper process. In this thread focus on the discussion about paragraphs in the lead of the Donald Trump page. Thanks.Thinker78 (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC):

In the Donald Trump page as in any other page all it takes is for a large enough group of biased, like-minded editors to take ownership, quashing any edits that don't reflect their bias. Your words, my friend, and a shining example of a bad-faith personal attack against other editors. Comments like that can lead to you being removed from this topic area, so, tread carefully, and cease the slurs. Now. Zaathras (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

"Like-minded editors taking ownership and quashing edits not reflecting their bias" — that's hardly WP:AGF, even if you don't mention anyone by name. On this page, everything, including the formatting and the punctuation, has been discussed extensively. The page has a number of editors who have been editing this and related articles for years and act as WP:SHEPHERDs, not WP:OWNERs. Reliably sourced improvements are always welcome, insistence on someone's POV that's not based on new RS not so much. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:TPG the sole purpose of this talk page is discussing article improvements

Personally, I'm sick of the bickering and wish all editors here would re-read WP:Focus on content.........NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC) SpaceX?? :Thanks for tagging my talk page, and I did not bicker. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC) Now you will be accused of calling them a sheep. SPECIFICO talk 14:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC) Sheep baaad. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC) Personally, I'm sick of the bickering, well, personally I'm sick of being gaslit by an editor in one thread, and they come participate in another thread like nothing ever happened. Zaathras (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC) We should be alright as long as the sheep haven't changed their secret password. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC) Could be a sockpuppet SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Should do what is best to retain readers. Making our readers scroll 4 times before there is any real info is a deterrent to read on [7]. More data Moxy- 15:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Your cited data is 5 years old. also, what % of visitors are android users? ValarianB (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

70 percent use non desktop versions ...this can be seen on any page by the "Pageviews Analysis" Wikipedia:Pageview statistics ..Moxy- 19:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't get what page 14 of a 2014 quarterly mobile review has to do with the lead or this entire article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

OK in mobile view (all explained in the link) after the first paragraph we see the info box then the second paragraph...so in this case we see one sentance then a huge i mean huge infobox. So most will only scroll one time......meaning they will never read more than the one sentence lead paragraph. Moxy- 19:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

As a desktop fullscreen PC guy...... THANK YOU for this important education. When my brain is working better, if no one else has already dealt with this, I'll start thinking about it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Unless there is a project-wide movement to shape editing to accommodate non-PC users, IMO all of this largely irrelevant. It does no good to customize this one page to fit a presumptive attentiveness issue of Android users. I'd point out that, per Help:Mobile access, the Wikipedia does not seem too eager to address mobile users. All they get is a redirect to a slightly browser-friendlier m.wiki.x.io, the actual wikipedia apps are all but abandoned. Zaathras (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I know little about Adaptive web design but one thing I'm certain about is folks are foolishly myopic if they ignore it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems that you are missing the point. I am not against making Wikipedia articles more accessible on modern non-desktop computer interfaces. But a single discussion at Talk:Donald Trump on tweaking the lede of Donald Trump is a sub-optimal way to tackle what is a broad and project-wide concern. Zaathras (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Our developers do think of this its why the infobox appears after the first paragraph despite it being coded before the paragraph. Its to allow us to hook our readers if you will. A one sentence paragraph is wasting the point of why we have the box after the first paragraph. On a side note a one sentence paragraph is something used in journalistic circles not encyclopedic content. Thus its assumed by our developers a paragraph will contain more than one sentence. Moxy- 02:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Where did you get the information on WP developers' assumptions? infobox appears after the first paragraph despite it being coded before the paragraph - as a non-coder I’m asking myself why/how it appears after the first paragraph if that isn't specified in the code (if/then or whatever)? Our first sentence does exactly what MOS Biographies' first sentence says it should do, i.e., "neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable". (Does Wikipedia even need to "hook readers", at 5 billion visitors per month?) I can think of a few things I would add to the first paragraph but I'm pretty sure that there'd be very emphatic objections. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

After the problem of FA reviews moving the box down one paragraph we asked the developers to do this automatically. The article should try and look academic not journalistic in appearance read me. Best to look credible off the bat. Moxy- 20:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Too Biased Against Trump

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

---

I hate Trump as much as the next guy, but even I can see the bias against him in this article. If you are going to take the time to write an article about him, please do it without bias. 172.74.203.83 (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

What are some suggestions you have that would make the article less biased? The content in this page is often debated, so we're open to suggestions. X-Editor (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't have closed so soon, even if repetitive, because X-Editor said we are open to suggestions. Closing after saying we are open to suggestions is a contradictory action that shut down at least two editors, while putting in bad light openness to suggestions. --Thinker78 (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2022 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 July 2022

Yo, half this is hearsay and debunked. This page needs edited. Mostly biases 75.118.249.80 (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

YOu need to actually say what edit you want us to make, we can't act on vague assertions. Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Article by Politico and best and worst Presidents

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.

---

Not sure this should be included as a fact. It may be a fact that they conducted a survey, but it is way to subject to political bias. 152.86.89.11 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Bringing this BLP to NPoV is a frustrating process, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Except we do not include it as a fact (unless the OP is saying that the poll did not come to that conclusion). Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2022 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 July 2022

It’s amazing you can’t edit but your article puts our 45th president, Donald J Trump in a bad light. He is revered as one of the best presidents, if not the best. GDP growth of 3% amongst all the other accomplishments such as NO WARS, NO INFLATION, BORDERS SECURED, ENERGY INDEPENDENT, HBCU’s for blacks, lowest unemployment rate for minorities are but a few of his accomplishments. Your site is why America doesn’t trust internet or its affiliates. Be better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C5E:5F3F:546B:79BE:7D23:F9EE:8DD8 (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

This article, is about Donald Trump not his presidency. Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

He is revered as one of the best presidents, if not the best. The Afghanistan War was ongoing during Trump's presidency. BORDERS SECURED. There was more fracking during Trump's presidency, but I'm not sure what he had to do with that other than being president during that time. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation. HBCU’s for blacks have existed since before the Civil Rights Act. Unemployment was already going down during Obama's presidency (again correlation does not necessarily equal causation) and the unemployment rate skyrocketed during the last year of Trump's presidency. The same can be said for GDP growth. I would be nice if you provided some sources, but you haven't. X-Editor (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Political legacies

WP:NOTFORUM. @SandRand97: actually, we won't "be here all day", because the WP:BURDEN is entirely on you to show that your proposed content comports with our Policies and Guidelines regarding Verification, Neutral Point of View, and article Lead sections. If you have well-reasoned policy-based arguments and sources, please present them here. Nobody is obligated to respond to you. SPECIFICO talk 14:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How is this not neutral? As has been suggested: “Trump’s most notable political legacies are his two impeachments, his alleged provocation of the January 6th attack and being singlehandedly procedurally responsible for giving abortion law-making in the U.S. back to state legislatures. The latter due to all three of his conservative Supreme Court judge appointees voting to overturn Roe v. Wade in June 2022, which was unconstitutionally imposed at the federal level in January 1973.“ It includes two left-wing perspectives and two right-wing perspectives, and is factually accurate in its words content SandRand97 (talk) 09:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC) I would also add the ‘Muslim ban’ as the second right wing prescriptive. SandRand97 (talk) 09:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC) I think there is an argument that the three Trump-appointed justices’ opting to overturn Roe vs Wade deserves to belong in the lede (even if it occurred after his presidency, it is difficult to deny, if at all, that the Supreme Court verdict occurred because of Trump and his judicial appointments). JLo-Watson (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC) @SandRand97: you violated the 24-hour BRD cycle in effect on this page - see WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES above. You added an unsourced op-ed to the lead. The lead summarizes the body, and whatever you add to the body needs to be based on reliable secondary sources. I doubt very much that reliable secondary sources exist for any of your claims, from the alleged legacies to your opinion that the SC justices overturned the unconstitutionally imposed Supreme Court decision. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC) Agree. I stopped considering it at the "unconstitutional imposed" part. SPECIFICO talk 13:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC) Abortion rights are not in the federal Constitution. It’s a fact that the original imposition of Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional, not an opinion. I’m not going to argue about it because there’s nothing to argue about. You can’t argue with facts. Have a good day. SandRand97 (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC) So were the original imposition of amendments to the Constitution unconstitutional? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC) SPECIFICO then just take that part out. It’s not complicated. SandRand97 (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC) Valjean: If amendments are consistent with the original constitution, then no. Again I don’t want to get into an argument about this because we’ll be here all day and I’m sure we all have better things to do. SandRand97 (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Condense foreign policy line in intro

The lead is very long, and "America First" only appears once in the body of the article (see MOS:LEADREL). Since we describe his foreign policy in detail already, and that's all the term refers to, I think we should merge that line with the following sentence:

In foreign policy, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, the Iran nuclear deal, and initiated a trade war with China.

─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 11:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed and done. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Also that kind of jargon is too likely to be misinterpreted or two prone to multiple diverse meanings for it to be informative in an encyclopedia. Sources I've seen just say that Trump liked the sound of "america first" which, like MAGA, is vague and likely to reinforce many voters' preconceived views. SPECIFICO talk 14:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Seems ok. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are not reliable for straightforward facts

Per WP:RSOPINION, "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. ... A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion." I edited this article to bring it in line with this guideline (removing two citations to opinion pieces and using inline attribution for another), but was reverted by User:SPECIFICO, who also reintroduced a misquotation. I would appreciate input from others about this issue. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to correct the misquote. You're also free to find other sources you think are more solid for the facts. SPECIFICO talk 21:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Done. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Well done. SPECIFICO talk 21:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Just saw article by New York Post stating Larry Sanger states Wikipedia can not be counted on to report in a non-partial manner. Just thought you would like to know. I , personally , and with respect for you, in that you are trying to do good, but unfortunately, this type of bias becomes very bad for any organization and will eventually lead to it's demize, in my humble opinion. I think an effort should be made to report as positive an image as possible and to avoid trying to lead anyone to an opinion. People will form opinions themselves. Wikipedia is not here to be a political dialogue. Please try to understand my point of view. Your hatred comes through in your article about Trump. It is almost like being a supremecist. 152.86.89.11 (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTAFORUM. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal: The comment is about improvement to the article, so it's not a NOTAFORUM situation. At this article, NOTAFORUM is about general talk about politics not directly connected to suggested article improvement. The problem here is that the comment is too general, and the IP user (and all others making similar comments) should be referred to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I have read both NOTAFORUM and Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. Forgive me, and knowing that I might not be a s wise, it appears to me, that you don't really get the point. I don't wish to argue the merits of Donald Trump, but you must admit that to a large segment of our society, he was a really outstanding President. For another segment of our society, he was hated and thus ridiculed. So in fact, he would be hard to describe, but to take a totally left wing approach to the whole article does not do justice to Wikipedia, which, I might add, I truly love. Sorry for the rehash. I think the article should be rewritten to reflect the respect to the office of The President of the United States of America. 152.86.89.11 (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

to a large segment of our society, he was a really outstanding President, a lot of people liked Benito Mussolini, too. That doesn't mean Benito Mussolini gets to have a pro-fascist bent. ValarianB (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the large segment of our society should stop watching Fox News and "the Internet" and take a look at the real world every once in a while. You are voicing your personal opinion that we are taking a totally left wing approach to the whole article. As our FAQ explains, "we are required to report the bad (negative) with the good (positive) – and the neither-bad-nor-good – in rough proportion to what's said in reliable sources, in this case largely major news outlets. If sources are widely critical of Trump, this article must reflect that. They are, so it does. This is Wikipedia policy." There is no point in continuing this discussion if you don’t present reliable sources saying what an outstanding president Trump was. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for getting you so upset. It is troubling to me and I only see this from my prospective. I admit this is your space and you are the authority. Some day, in another time, you may understand what I am trying to say without assuming I mean some kind of harm. May you have a wonderful time in your life and your dreams come true. 152.86.89.11 (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Provide one item we say is a fact that is sourced to an op-ed. Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Good job here guys, happy editing. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

One of the worst wiki pages ever.

Get a neutral party to write it. This page was written by someone with a fatal case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. It is embarrassing. Whoever wrote this should be fired. 2A00:1028:D000:3BA:9DEE:54FF:958:5B5E (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Well no one person wrote it, and no one who write it is employed the Wikipedia foundation. Now, do you have specific objections? Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2022

In the section titled Immigration, please change:

"As president, he frequently described illegal immigration as an "invasion" and conflated immigrants with the criminal gang MS-13, though research shows undocumented immigrants have a lower crime rate than native-born Americans."

to: "As president, he frequently described illegal immigration as an "invasion" and conflated immigrants with the criminal gang MS-13, though some research suggests undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than American citizens."

Explanation: I request that the last clause be edited to be more in line with that the original USA Today source says. It does not specify "native-born Americans," rather it says "American citizens" (which could include naturalized citizens). I also request that "research" be changed to "some research" as this is in line with the source as well. As well as changing "shows" to "suggests," which is also in line with the source. Also changing "crime rate" to "commit crimes," which is also what the source says. Thanks. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: The only good point you make is the native-born Americans portion being unclear. I've added a similar USA Today source for clarification and changed the text to:

As president, he frequently described illegal immigration as an "invasion" and conflated immigrants with the criminal gang MS-13, though a majority of studies have found lower U.S. crime rates among undocumented immigrants than among citizens.

––FormalDude talk 04:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I've read both the original USA Today source and the one you added, and I don't see where you got the majority of studies. The 2019 article doesn't mention research of crime rates at all. The 2018 article says that All available national crime statistics show immigrants commit fewer crimes, not more, than those born in the U.S., as does this ABC News fact check: What available studies do show, however, is that overall, crime rates are lower among immigrant groups than they are among native-born Americans. Both "some research" and "a majority of studies" imply that there are other studies that indicate higher crime rates for immigrants but I don't see that in the sources. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Is he a fascist?

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.

---

Does he qualify? 129.222.139.40 (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Depends on your definition. Fascism is often defined as including extreme militarism, extreme nationalism, and a contempt for liberal democracy [8]. I don't think he fits this description. He avoided war, notably in Korea. He is no more nationalistic than many other US politicians. And he used the liberal democracy system to get into power and influence US society. Do you have a reliable source which says he's a fascist?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

A demagogue? perhaps. Fascist? no. GoodDay (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Enough RS describe him as fascist-leaning or fascist-adjacent, I would think. Andrevan@ 02:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

"The debate over whether to call Donald Trump a fascist, and why it matters", Vox. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Years ago on my talkpage, an editor (since departed) called me a fascist, because I kept calling Wales a constituent country, rather then a country. Whatcha gonna do? GoodDay (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Per this discussion in the talk archive, I think they were unable to come to a conclusion as to whether or not to call him a fascist in the article. I think the issue is: If a news article calls him a fascist, are they editorializing it, or are they using a traditionally accepted definition of fascism? FrederalBacon (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, it is listed at this article, that there was an academic who linked Trump to fascism. That is probably the most appropriate place for it. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

It's probably a bit early for academia to decide whether they're going to end up calling him a fascist. But if a news article calls him a fascist in a news context, I think it would be clear versus editorializing. Personally, I think if there are sufficient RS describing him as a fascist, it might merit inclusion in this article. Andrevan@ 03:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I ask, what is calling trump fascist in a news context vs calling him fascist in a editorial context? You say it should be clear differentiating between the two, I'm curious how. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

An editorial context would be an article that's more of an opinion piece or a think piece, like something like this: [9] "Trumpism is fascism, American-style. And if these committee hearings accomplish anything, they finally will awaken our fellow citizens to the clear and present danger that Trump and his allies pose to our system, so they can move to reject it before it sets fire to our elections this fall and in 2024." Seems like editorializing. Whereas straight ahead news would be something more factual. Most of the sources I've found use the terms "white nationalist," "far right extremist," etc. E.g. "Members espouse fascist and anti-Semitic beliefs, which they spread through propaganda campaigns,"[10] I haven't found a source yet that describes Trump the same way, but it doesn't seem to much of a stretch if one did. Andrevan@ 03:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll leave it to you to find one that would meet that standard that would also meet the approval of other editors. I'm sure you know that adding a fascism reference would be contentious, and I still contend that the best place for that is on his political positions page. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if I can find one, anon editor who started the thread is welcome to go look for one. I didn't find a good one. I think the media mostly call him a white nationalist or far right extremist. Andrevan@ 04:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Paxton is the only influential fascism expert who changed his mind about Trump, but he has not submitted his findings to peer review. And no it's not early for experts to determine whether Trump is a fascist, unless he comes back into office and kills his opponents. TFD (talk) 04:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Academics don't even agree on the definition of fascism. I think it would make more sense to discuss whether to call him an authoritarian or a demagogue at this point. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Psychological profiles of his supporters show they are attracted to authoritarian leaders. That's one aspect to include. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I would love to see a source for that. Mainly for my own curiosity regarding the subject. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

"Whereas straight ahead news would be something more factual." News that that tend to ignore the elephant in the room and attempt to sweep controversies under the rug, are rarely factual. They are low-quality sources at best, and misinformation at worst. Dimadick (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what you're referring to. There are definitely op-eds, in reputable outlets, and there is hard news. WP:RS WP:V etc. We need to follow what the sources say. I happen to agree that many mainstream news sources shy away from potentially inflammatory stuff, and couch it in language, e.g. "Trump falsely claims X" vs "Trump lied about X." However, it's not for us to determine, we need to follow what the reliable sources say. The reliable sources are largely going to be NYT, WaPo, CNN, NBC, CBS, The Guardian, BBC, etc... I think we are probably not going to use left-leaning outlets like Jacobin or The Nation or Mother Jones as a source here. Vox was OK last I checked. The Intercept might well be acceptable. IMO, Fox News should never be used. There are also quite a few known hard-right-wing misinformation sources like the Federalist, etc. Andrevan@ 19:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's an article from Vox where they essentially go "Yes. No. Maybe. No one can agree". And this is post Jan 6th, so that part is included. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Straight ahead news is factual for reporting straight ahead news. I wouldn't use it for political analysis because it's not reliable for that. Getting a journalism degree at Columbia and getting a job at the New York Times does not put one in the same league as publishing books and articles about fascism that are routinely discussed in textbooks and in academic papers. TFD (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you to the extent that if we had a number of academic sources calling Trump a fascist, we would definitely be able to use them. If you have those handy, I'm open to it for sure. I think it might be "early" in the sense that it's totally possible that academic consensus will form or has already formed that Trump is a fascist, I haven't seen the sourcing for that per se, but it may yet be shown, and wouldn't surprise me. As far as my comment, I was only distinguishing opinion reporting from news reporting, per Dimadick's comment that straight news is low-quality. I don't think straight news is low quality, but I agree that if we have a series of academic references that start describing history in a certain way, that would trump the primary sourcing that's mostly for establishing factual events as you say. I don't agree though that contemporary secondary sourcing is low quality. Andrevan@ 20:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

We don't have any academic sources saying Trump is a fascist. TFD (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Mostly they seem to call him authoritarian populist, but some have called him his movement neo-fascist. Here's what I found on a quick search:

• The neo-fascist discourse and its normalisation through mediation. By: Cammaerts, Bart, Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 17447143, Sep2020, Vol. 15, Issue 3 "In this article, I set out to deconstruct the main nodal points of the neo-fascist discourse, using a multi-cultural political discourse analysis of Trump and Modi."
• Race, gender, and political culture in the Trump era: the fascist allure. Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries; Jul2022, Vol. 59 Issue 11, p1350-1350, 1/4p
• January 6th Uprising Was a Fascist Coup d'etat. Social Policy. Fall2021, Vol. 51 Issue 3, p12-19. 8p.
• Geopolitical events and fascist machines: Trump, Brexit and the deterritorialisation of the West Political geography. 57:91-93
• Trump and the legacy of a menacing past Giroux, Henry A., Cultural Studies, 09502386, Jul2019, Vol. 33, Issue 4 "The inability to learn from the past takes on a new meaning as a growing number of authoritarian regimes emerge across the globe. This essay argues that central to understanding the rise of a fascist politics in the United States is the necessity to address the power of language and the intersection of the social media and the public spectacle as central elements in the rise of a formative culture that produces the ideologies and agents necessary for an American-style fascism."
• Brett Colasacco. “Before Trump: On Comparing Fascism and Trumpism.” Journal for the Study of Radicalism 12, no. 1 (2018): 27–53. https://doi.org/10.14321/jstudradi.12.1.0027.
• Kutner, Samantha. “Swiping Right: The Allure of Hyper Masculinity and Cryptofascism for Men Who Join the Proud Boys.” International Centre for Counter-Terrorism, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep25259.
• Kornegay, Francis. “Black Remobilization and the Crisis in American Democracy and Security in the US Election of 2020: Part I.” Institute for Global Dialogue, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep30615. ", the racial fascism of the Donald J. Trump presidency..." Andrevan@ 03:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

You have not provided any academic quotes that say, "Trump is a fascist," and some of your sources are not academic. Anyone can google "Trump+fascism," and say one of the hits is an academic source making this claim. But it's not up to me to read all of them, you need to provide one source making your claim. TFD (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

That's fair, I very clearly stated that I didn't find a source that flatly calls Trump a fascist. I said he seems to be talked about in the context of being fascist-adjacent, but "authoritarian populist" seems to have more currency. What seems more common is linking the Proud Boys, Jan 6, and Trumpism to fascism, as opposed to Trump himself. Andrevan@ 04:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, what a passing by IP can stir. Demagogue would be a more accurate description of the 45th US president. GoodDay (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

We are venturing into "Use talk page as a forum" territory here. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree @FrederalBacon: with your observation. This discussion is going nowhere. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I find this discussion frustrating. Speaking as someone who has called Trump a fascist (though I prefer the more all-encompassing word "authoritarian"), I think it would be entirely inappropriate for a Wikipedia article to label Trump as one, as if it's some kind of objective terminology. Even scholars of fascism have serious disagreements about what the term means and whom it applies to, and the term has lost meaning through overuse as a political slur. marbeh raglaim (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Do RS call him one? Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Not to the degree that, say, MTG is described as a conspiracy theorist, no, but the rumblings of "Trump is a fascist" can be found here and there. But not enough yet to go the full "X is a Y" at this time. IMO this discussion by a random IP was not begun in good faith and should be archived. ValarianB (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The same thing happened with George W. Bush,[11] Reagan and Nixon. Some people think that racism, xenophobia, nativism, populism, demagogy, misogyny, homophobia, etc., never existed in the U.S. until they were imported from Europe after WWII.

Maybe Trump tried to win in 2020 the way Bush won in 2000, when Republicans used Roger Stone to organize a violent mob and Republican judges stopped the count. In that case, he was just following a U.S. tradition.

TFD (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree it was not in good faith, I think this just speaks to a general misunderstanding of the "Left-Right" political spectrum. The general feeling is that the furthest "left" you can be is communist, and the furthers "Right" you can be is fascist, and that's just not the truth for either case. There's a wide range of ideologies at all points in the spectrum; it isn't just one axis, there's at least an X and a Y axis. That's why I'm very much so in favor of letting the academics decide this one: They're gonna know all the little check marks and signs to put this ideology into a box. Not me. Not any of us. Not journalists. The people who actually study this sort of thing and are the true subject matter experts. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• I was just about the close this discussion which seems to have been or turned into a discussion of Fascism#Contemporary_fascism_(2008–present). Maybe the interested editors would like to continue the discussion there? Doesn't look to me as though this is WP:DUE for this page. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
• Move to close, as others have said this is turning into WP:forum Anon0098 (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2022 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2022

Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics, and promoted conspiracy theories. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist, and many as misogynistic. -These need to be deleted. Brockdb (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done per every previous discussion about this. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Well I wasn't involved in any prior discussion and I would like to give the OP the chance to say something that is "actionable". @Brockdb: could you please identify the single-most one or two concerning bit of text in the article, and why you are concerned about them? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Giving SPA drive by accounts space to moan isn't productive. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, sorry. Next time if SPA is part of your reason please say so, and save both of us some time fixing such misunderstandings. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not at fault here. A 5 second search in the archives would've given you this too. Not to mention the giant red notice that says if you don't include a specific reason and reliable sources, requests will be denied. We're volunteer editors and don't need to dedicate more time to questions that have been repeatedly answered and are even in the header of this very page. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Blame? Fault? Overreaction? By not typing less than 10 letters you made a LOT more work for both of us. I'm moving on and taking a few deep relaxing breaths.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, didn't you notice that Brockdb, a new account with exactly one edit, quoted the last two sentences of the third paragraph of the lead and then simply said they needed to be deleted? Trump made many false and misleading statements—consensus item 49, Many of his comments and actions—consensus item 30. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

No, and let's not turn a dustbunny under the bed into a tornado. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

FYI: we have a list of the items forming the current consensus at the top of this Talk page, much of it dealing with the lead. It might be helpful reading for editors who weren't involved in any prior discussion. Not surprisingly, the OP didn't respond to your ping. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I had taken a pass through there before but haven't memorized it and don't plan to. The TPG expects people to provide an explanation; I've edited in climate change for more than a decade. Everyone I've seen cite the FAQ includes the paragraph number instead of a dismissive WP:VAGUEWAVE. That's consisent with Help:Edit summary If you're the one relying on the FAQ because you know about it, it's not like its hard to type an edit sum saying "SPA, see FAQ X", right? And talk about extra work....we are still talking about this. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

BTW In this case, had it been me and I realized the SPA-OP quoted two sentences and just said they had to be deleted, I probably would have just removed the post and written "Rmv harmful troll/soap per TPO" for the edit sum. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

You could have just asked editor Praxidicae about every previous discussion, you know, AGF. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

This page has a problem with short tempers. I did use AGF applied to what I knew.... the SPA account name was blue and I assumed they were an established user. They left out quotes and necessary words to teach my thick head that they quoted. I thought they were making a general remark about mystery text. And doing AGF, I invited them to elaborate.

.

.

. I don't supppose you'd be willing to stop beating the dead horse? I mean, I thought were done 2x or 3x already. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

the SPA account name was blue—uh, no? Yeah, I'm done. I assumed that you didn't recognize the two sentences from the lead. Maybe we should un-archive the drive-by trolling of the last few months, put them in a separate section on the Talk page, and just let that section fester and grow. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Strange but true the name was blue. I tried clicking on their talk to make sure they had the DS alerts and that's when it turned red. I dump all history when I close my browser. When I boot back up and come back to this page its blue again. I'd never noticed this behavior before and if youo want to follow my to the Vpump, we'll see what anyone has to say about that behavior. But right here? I do like the edit summary you wrote in this diff. That's good advice, I'm taking it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC) Does your browser clear everything (cookies, site data, cache), for all time? It seems to be caching content somewhere. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I may have missed a setting somewhere, but yeah, I think so. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC) PS.... You know, I forgot that I tried to ping and its red there. I saw that, and tried to fix my typo and couldn'tmake it go blue...... what color do you see on the sig for the SPA on their opening post? Right now I see blue, but my ping to the same name is red.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

It's always been red when I looked at it. There's something odd about Brockdb's talk page, too. The account doesn't have a user page but there is a Talk page. It has an entry with flowers on it but there's no edit history. No idea how that is possible. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC) When it's blue and you hover the cursor over it, does it say (page does not exist)? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

User:NewsAndEventsGuy/common.js imports User:Kephir/gadgets/unclutter.js which changes signatures. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I completely forgot I set that up. It does a good job keeping annoyingly formatted signatures at bay. This is the first time I even noticed anything it was doing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Has there ever been a US president that didn't make false statements and promises, during their campaigns? An example from Biden's 2020 campaign: $5 minimum wage & election reform, to name a couple. I rarely bother with these discussions on this BLP, anymore. So, I'll leave it up to those that do frequent this BLP's talkpage, as to what should & shouldn't be included. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Trump's off the historical charts on this. Andrevan@ 01:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Neutral language

I just made some very minor edits (mostly commas and non-breaking spaces with one citation), but I noticed that the opportunity exists to update some of the language to be more gender-neutral (ex: chairperson). I didn't want to just make these changes without input though, so please let me know your thoughts. Apologies if this has already been talked to death! Lindsey40186 (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

GO FOR IT. And I'm ashamed you felt the need to ask first. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is wise to move on without broader consideration, i.e. I just skimmed Barack Obama and it liberally uses "chairman" as well. If MOS:GNL is the guiding style, surely there's been a larger discussion somewhere regarding how to go about addressing 20 years worth of gendered term usage in encyclopedia articles? Also, "chairperson", ugh. Use "chair", please. Don't sacrifice readability for correctness. Zaathras (talk) 01:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I jumped the gun a bit. I tend to prefer "chair" as well. Definitely reads better.

I'm certainly open to a further discussion. I agree it would be unnecessarily tedious to dredge through every article for GNL changes, but figured since this was a living person who is still making headlines, that it would be worth it to address. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lindsey40186:, tap the brakes there, please. What I feared would happen is exactly what happened. Example, you can't change the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff into "Chairperson" or even "Chair". CJCS is the literal title and designation of the head of the Joint Chiefs, see jcs.mil. Zaathras (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

So I did a bit of digging through the archives and did find that the key point seems to be to use GNL "when possible" and I think that's going to be the key to appropriateness. I agree that, if the title is Chair[man/woman/whatever] then it should be unchanged from that so that Wiki can maintain precision (the top goal). I do still think that it would be worth addressing in some form, though certainly not as a blanketing yes/no.Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I already changed a few chairman to chair; I left Trump's "man" because I didn't want to deal with the fracas of gender neutering Trump, errr, I mean Trump's title. I left "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs". As soon as a woman breaks that ceiling we'll find out what the pentagon does. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

"Committee chair" seems alright. It is preferred GNL, even though the source that names Cummings (WaPo) uses "chairman". I don't think we should change Bannon's jobtitle from "chairman of Breitbart" to "chair"—it was his jobtitle. Also, "chair of Breitbart News" sounds a bit like furniture. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Lindsey40186. I think you forgot to take a read through of WP:JOBTITLES. In the intro of bios, we lowercase the office when it's preceded by a prefix. In this bios' case? "45th". GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• Lindsey40186, you just violated the 24-BRD restrictions in effect on this page. Zaathras reverted the first time you capitalized "president" (see MOS:JOBTITLES), and GoodDay pointed out why that was the case. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Capitalization of job titles

Re this, this, this, this, this, this, and this edit. WP didn't just make up arbitrary rules. MOS:JOBTITLES is based on the Chicago Manual of Style. The LA Times explains it like this: "'Civil, military, religious, and professional titles are capitalized when they immediately precede a personal name and are thus used as part of the name," states the Chicago Manual of Style. "Titles are normally lowercased when following a name or used in place of a name.'"

Mededitor, a veteran editor who doesn’t use his real name on Twitter, mimicked an attitude he has encountered: "But the Regional Manager is an important person — we HAVE to uppercase her job title!"

Owen again: "I've had to explain multiple times that Vice President Bob Smith gets capped but vice president of advancement Bob Smith does not."

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:JOBTITLES reached a consensus well over a year or more, ago. Prefixes in the article body, mean "lowercasing" & no prefixes means "uppercasing". GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

We capitalise the office in the infobox, prefix or not, because it's not a sentence. See other world leaders' infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

My apologies for reverting you earlier @BlueShirtz:. I momentarily thought it was you, who made the change without consensus. GoodDay (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

lol its fine BlueShirtz (talk) 06:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Do we capitalise offices, in the infobox?

Please, don't lower case "President of the United States" in Donald Trump's infobox. We do that for the article intro, only. An RFC on the infobox matter, was held 'bout a year ago & there was no consensus to lower case for any office holders. Meanwhile, look at the infoboxes of the other US presidents & vice presidents. Not to mention other world leaders. Just asking you, don't put folks through that argument again. But if you really have to? Next time, open up an another RFC on the matter. PS - Can't believe you tried such a thing though, without getting a consensus first. GoodDay (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

(Transferred from my Talk page) GoodDay, can't believe it? It's called a bold edit for something that hasn't been discussed on this Talk page, AFAIK. I explained my reason in the edit summary. You keep mentioning previous RfCs "about a year ago" but you didn’t include the links. I tracked down two discussions, JOBTITLES interpretation and Application of JOBTITLES, neither one an RfC and neither one confirming your claim. I know the template says office=President of the United States but the reader sees the modified 45th President of the United States. It's only an office as long as the person is President of the United States, i.e., currently that's Joe Biden whose infobox ought to say President of the United States without the modifier for the duration. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I can provide some background. The issue of capitalization in that field of that infobox has come up before. Very informally and without a lot of participation (I think at least some of the discussion was on user talk pages), it was decided to deviate from the letter of JOBTITLES because it's not in prose and could be considered a "title" of that section of the infobox. It therefore seemed acceptable, and maybe more natural, to use title case there, and it's very plausible that JOBTITLES simply fails to consider this specific situation. Obviously this is open to a stronger consensus to the contrary, but I think it should be done so as to apply to all U.S. presidents if not all officeholders. That would mean a different forum such as VPR. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I now notice that the "title" of the following section of the infobox, "Personal details", is in sentence case, weakening if not killing the above rationale. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Just surprised, after all this time that you've been around this BLP, that you'd make such an edit, S4T3C2. Also, by singling out this president, one could've taken your change, as an attempt to belittle Trump. To suggest he hadn't been legitimately US president. Anyways, as the IP mentioned. Village Pump or another venue, would be the place, to attempt to decapitalise all office titles in infoboxes, across Wikipedia. I'm sure in the Canadian & certainly the Australian & New Zealand politician pages, you'd find strong resistance. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

one could've taken your change but one shouldn't have as I neither singled out nor suggested. I'm on this BLP proposing that it comply with MOS:JOBTITLES which does not make an exception for infoboxes on former U.S. presidents' pages, nothing more. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

If you want to have offices lowercased in politicians' infoboxes? This isn't the page to achieve that. The appropriate Village Pump, would likely be best. PS - Many months ago, another editor attempt the same kinda change, over at the Joe Biden page. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Unite The Right comments

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I changed that paragraph based on the more balanced perspective from the Unite the Right rally page itself, which calls it a white supremacist rally rather than a far-right rally and notes defenses of Trumps remarks. Per WP:RSP, RCP has no consensus on reliability, but is still to avoid. However, the USA Today source I added summarizes the defence of the remarks as "However, some people say they believe Trump also condemned white supremacists and neo-Nazis as part of his "very fine people" statement." This should be included in the paragraph. In addition, the addition I made to the article saying "Trump also condemned both neo-Nazis and white nationalists in response to the rally." is backed up by Politico, which is reliable. I suggest changing the paragraph to the following: "Trump's comments on the 2017 white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, condemning "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides" and stating that there were "very fine people on both sides", were criticized by some as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist demonstrators and the counter-protesters. Others interpreted his "fine people" remark as explicitly denouncing white supremacists and neo-Nazis. Trump also condemned both neo-Nazis and white nationalists in response to the rally." As for the quote, it should be expanded because not mentioning what he said after the main comment would be quoting out of context when the CNN source provided shows the full quote. The last thing we want to engage in is quotemining. X-Editor (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The point of having sub-articles on related topics is to keep the information there, and not bloat this giant article any more than it already is. Also Trump's "both sidesing" the affair does not belong here. Zaathras (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Zaathras: I agree that sub-articles exist for a reason, but my proposed change would only add slightly more content and is far more neutral. The current paragraph leaves out crucial context, such as not mentioning that Trump condemned white nationalists and neo-Nazis. You also didn't address my comment regarding the quotemine of Trump. X-Editor (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I think X-Editor makes a good point. This article is to big but I think this is important enough to include both for the more balanced perspective. I also agree that this way is far more neutral. MaximusEditor (talk) 05:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• We’re not bound by the content of other WP articles. BTW, Unite the Right Rally goes on to say that "far-right groups participated," and then lists them by name.

You added POV in the name of balance. You used a partisan commentator (Cortes—more on him below) as a source for part of the first sentence you added (WP:RS), and interpreted a primary source (a transcript of Trump’s comments) for the second sentence (WP:OR—Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself). Our current text says (I bolded the text changed or added in your version):

Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, condemning "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides" and stating that there were "very fine people on both sides", were widely criticized as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist demonstrators and the counter-protesters.

That’s neutral, short, and to the point. Your version:

Trump's comments on the 2017 white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, condemning "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides" and stating that there were "very fine people on both sides", were criticized by some as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist demonstrators and the counter-protesters. Others characterized the interpretation of the latter comment as a hoax, because Trump's "fine people" statement explicitly denounced white nationalists. Trump also condemned both neo-Nazis and white nationalists in response to the rally.

"Others", per your only source, is Wall Street trader, Trump campaign operative, and Fox commentator Steve Cortes commenting on RealClear Politics—are you seriously arguing that he is a reliable source? Well, here’s a comment published on The Bulwark (website), not really a left-leaning outlet, on Steve Cortes’s "Charlottesville hoax" conspiracy theory. He tried to repurpose the name of the conspiracy theory "Charottesville Hoax" (a claim that Heather Heyer’s murder was a hoax) to an alleged hoax perpetrated by media outlets falsely quoting/reporting on Trump’s comments. No, the media didn’t do either, and both Trump’s statements and the media reports have been fact checked over and over again.

because Trump's "fine people" statement explicitly denounced white nationalists. USA Today says that's partly false "because he did not say directly, 'There were very fine people on both sides, & I'm not talking about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists because they should be condemned totally.' The two statements were separate, the second part coming later, after further questioning from reporters." In other words, journalists eventually managed to drag a denouncement out of Trump but that didn't prevent him from reverting to "fine people on both sides". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: You're actually right about the USA Today article not saying it is an interpretation. As for the FactCheck.org link, it does say that some people disagree with the interpretation, but links to an article titled "Pence joins in the effort to rewrite Trump's Charlottesville history" as evidence, so clearly whitewashing. However, Trump did still later condemn white supremacists and Neo-nazis in a later statement. So i would propose adding the sentence "However, Trump later stated that "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally–but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists"." after the initial paragraph that is already there for context and balance. You're also right about the RCP article represents a clear COI and it's disappointing that his interpretation was displayed uncritically in the UTR rally article for quite some time. X-Editor (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: However, you haven't addressed my concerns of this article quotemining Trump by not mentioning that he said "And some, I assume, are good people." after he said "They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists." You might say that was to give plausible deniability, but this interpretation doesn't matter if it hasn't been documented in reliable sources. X-Editor (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It has been documented as such, as have many of his clarifications, jokes, and slips of the tongue. SPECIFICO talk 19:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

This article does not document the other quote where he condemns them, which is why I want to add the quote to the paragraph in the article about his response to the rally. X-Editor (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I briefly wondered whether "quotemining" was referring to the Mexican rapists sentence but since that had nothing with the Unite the Right rally I didn't address it. I'm not strongly opposed to adding the sentence to the quote, I just don't see what it would add. The three bald statements (all Mexicans, no assuming) followed by a weak, "well, maybe some are not" — he's not walking anything back. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It would add context, because if people only see the first part of the quote, they might interpret that as him saying that all of them are doing that, when the second part shows that is not the case. I actually agree with SPECIFICO below that it might be better to write a summary of how mainstream reporting interprets his provocations instead of just showing specific comments from him, but for now, the context should be added. X-Editor (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Space4Time on our current language. For the last line: While there's certainly room for expansion like adding his later comments in ideal circumstances, we have to be careful on this enormous page. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Adding that quote wouldn't be much more content and would add context and neutrality. X-Editor (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@X-Editor: a better approach might be to write a few sentences on the overwhelming mainstream reporting and analysis of Trump's use of various weak prevarications and deflections to chum up his base and right-wing media supporters. Then we would be giving an encyclopedic overview without having to go into the details of what he said or to omit all or part of what he said each and every time. SPECIFICO talk 20:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC) @X-Editor:20:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

That actually sounds a lot better, but for now, the context should be added per my explanation above. X-Editor (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO:@GordonGlottal:@Space4Time3Continuum2x:@Zaathras:@MaximusEditor: Just so everyone is clear, my proposed change is now adding this sentence to the UTR rally paragraph: "However, Trump later stated that "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally–but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists"." and to add Trump saying "And some, I assume, are good people." next to the other part of the quote that says "They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists." to the article. X-Editor (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

This really adds nothing of value to the article. The former president has offered these mealy-mouthed half-retraction half-excusemaking at several junctures, from Charlottesville to J6. Zaathras (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Context is nothing of value? X-Editor (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Zaathras has put it in a nutshell. Dog bites man. Trump denies XYZ -- not only do mainstream sources take this deflection as nonsense, they don't even bother mentioning it in subsequent discussions of his statement. Yes, there are the contemporaneous accounts of all kinds of presidential pronouncements, but the media and tertiary sources did not take that seriously. Fog is not context that clarifies. SPECIFICO talk 22:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough and thanks for providing a better explanation. The paragraph is meant to summarize the most notable aspects of his response anyways and there is more context in the article about the UTR itself. X-Editor (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The second one doesn't bother me, but nor do I really think it's necessary. For the first: fundamentally, the point of this section is to summarize the racial views of Donald Trump. At the top we say that he denies being a racist etc. Below we give various examples of incidents that have been taken to be a better reflection of his genuine views. The fact that he later reverted to his more PC, controlled statements or muddied the waters isn't really that relevant. The reader knows that he denies it and that claims otherwise are an attempt to read between the lines of his public persona. Anyone interested in more can look at the full page. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Zaathras, Spefico, and Gordon. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You mentioned the idea of writing "a few sentences on the overwhelming mainstream reporting and analysis of Trump's use of various weak prevarications and deflections to chum up his base and right-wing media supporters ... without having to go into the details of what he said or to omit all or part of what he said each and every time." Do you have any suggestions on what that might look like and what sources we could use? That sounds much more encyclopedic than just cherrypicking several things he has said. X-Editor (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

You might look in some of the books that were published in the second half of his presidency -- by Phil Rucker, Woodward, Mary PenceMary Trump, John Bolton, and others. There is also analysis in the top RS media such as NPR, NY Times, Washington Post, BBC. I would be very happy to see you tackle this and I think many editors would join you if you'd like to get the ball rolling on this project. SPECIFICO talk 23:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Who is Mary Pence? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Mercy, upon my word, thank you so much SpaceX. Mary Trump. Anyway such research would be discussed in a separate section about tertiary overviews of the issue of POTUS' denials. SPECIFICO talk 19:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I was mulling over "Karen", "Trump", and several Mary Pences on social media. BTW, I wouldn't recommend reading Bolton's "exceedingly tedious and slightly unhinged" book, either, unless you’re in need of a sleep aid. Almost 600 pages of "minute and often extraneous details", "bloated with self-importance". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

You appear to have misunderstood this suggestion. I don't believe the suggestion is to add more sources on individual incidents like you did here. (I reverted the edit.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, why are you recommending we read a book by John Bolton? See "JOHN BOLTON CHAIRS AN ACTUAL “FAKE NEWS” PUBLISHER INFAMOUS FOR SPREADING ANTI-MUSLIM HATE". (The Intercept, March 23 2018) I found that article on a page in the SPLC's Hatewatch, listing articles about Bolton.[12] TFD (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

wp:DENY👩‍⚖️ SPECIFICO talk 13:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

That's an essay about vandalism. See WP:VANDAL: "Assume good faith yourself; instead of calling the person who made the edits a "vandal", discuss your concerns with them. Comment on the content and substance of the edits, instead of making personal attacks."

It's certainly not vandalism to ask why you would ask us to read a book by someone whom the SPLC has revealed as publishing a fake news site. Unless you believe that the SPLC is a far left advocacy group wrongly targeting people who oppose abortion, same sex marriage and racial integration.

TFD (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Not vandalism, trollery. But you seem to have recovered.👩🏻‍🚀 SPECIFICO talk 20:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

It's good to see 'here' & in more recent discussions, that the 'hatting' technique has ceased. But, the struggle does continue, to bring this BLP to NPoV status. Not an easy task, to be sure. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Proposal

I think that through the discussion above, the one thing that was shown, is that the phrase in the lede "The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign, but not that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia." is contentious, and thus, my proposal is that it is not to be edited without talkpage consensus, in accordance with the provisions for other sentences of the lede. Fbifriday (talk) 02:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise and the proposed remedy. I propose that instead we should determine a consensus for any change or lack thereof, rather than proposing new restrictions on the rate of change of said text. I disagree that we need to "lock down" the lead section or its phrasing through a special proposal. If there's no consensus to change it, it still may change by other editors being bold and trying to change it, or introducing other new ideas or changes in the future (not me necessarily). Andrevan@ 02:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

And what are the results of you following that understanding? Not good. We are your allies and largely agree, but your methods have wasted good opportunities for incremental change. That's disappointing.

Try to cooperate and align your thinking with other editors. Your chances of success will be vastly improved. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Let's focus on what we want to happen and get less hung up on the process. Our goal is to be constructive and move forward and come to a consensus. I appreciate you are being productive and are trying to build a consensus. You may feel that I am being hasty or am upsetting the apple cart. That is reasonable feedback, the important thing now though is to have a discussion about what we want to do or change going forward. Clearly there's enough of an impetus to update this sentence in some way, that is my goal, to have a discussion. Andrevan@ 02:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I do not agree with the proposal because the sentence clearly needs updating as new revelations about the Mueller investigation have come to light. There are many reliable sources that state the Mueller report found Trump repeatedly used his position to threaten, discredit, or cajole potential witnesses cooperating with the investigation to the extent of potential obstruction of justice. ––FormalDude talk 02:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree it needs to be changed, and we are trying to form consensus about that above. But that was my point behind this: This is a contentious sentence, when it is changed, it will be by consensus. It shouldn't be changed without it at this point. Fbifriday (talk) 02:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that's the current mainstream view, and I recall that was a widespread view at the outset. Mueller enumerated various obstruction of justice crimes but, since he was not prosecuting, he did not state them as outright allegations. He also made it clear that the broad obstruction was effective and that had Trump not succeeded in that, Mueller might well have alleged conspiracy or other crimes. This all got muddied up in the controversy over Barr's whitewashing the conclusions. SPECIFICO talk 02:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Waittasec, we're now debating the text/interpretation and not the proposal. Andrevan@ 02:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Fbifriday: I misunderstood, I'm striking my comment because although I believe it needs to be changed, that change should come from a consensus. It's typical to leave the status quo text up while discussion occurs. ––FormalDude talk 02:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Er, I was responding to SPECIFICO's comment to your comment. The proposal is that Fbifriday is proposing that we should make it require a consensus to change the sentence as exists now. Currently, any bold editor could go forth and change the sentence. Fbifriday is proposing to lock the present status quo with the binding consensus. If you want to change what exists now, I would think opposing this proposal would allow someone to change the sentence more easily, using WP:BOLD WP:BRD. Andrevan@ 02:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

BOLD is ALWAYS disruptive and NEVER works for controversial content under dispute. B and R have been tried, so now we Discuss.

The three current ideas have some support, but there is no consensus for the exact wording and placement (and some editors even oppose the ideas), so step back and discuss until a consensus emerges.

Each idea should be discussed in its own thread, and anybody who jumps the gun and makes an edit that fucks this up again should be trouted using a rose fish. That draws blood, as I know from experience. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Andrevan, at this point, your emphatic defense of your ability to change this particular sentence as you please, despite your edits being challenged repeatedly, and then the discussion that at best shows no clear consensus in favor of any particular change, at worst a consensus for status quo, isn't helping the argument that it shouldn't be left as is until consensus should be changed. I supported your edits, but I am no longer supporting your methods. This needs consensus, and the above discussion that has honestly gone on for entirely too long about one sentence shows it. Fbifriday (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I've stopped changing the sentence, but I also don't agree we need to lock a consensus for anyone else to try changing it. I also don't agree with Valjean that BOLD is disruptive. I think it can be constructive. Obviously were I to edit the sentence further at this point, I'd be stepping over a clear line. Also, I STRONGLY disagree that the discussion has "gone on for entirely too long." The discussion has just started. You can disagree with my ideas or my actions, you are free to refute or revert me, but you've spent a lot of time attacking me and trying to protected your preferred version. There's no consensus right now but there's a discussion, which should go on for a little while until we have a better idea of what to do (or not). WP:THEWRONGVERSION Andrevan@ 03:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

BOLD is ALWAYS disruptive and NEVER works for controversial content under dispute. Try reading beyond the first word. In the history of Wikipedia, you won't find an example that contradicts that statement. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, I haven't touched the lede since SPECIFICO reverted my change. Each time I changed the article - the first time to remove the clause, the 2nd time adding one version of text, and another different version which hadn't been challenged as such - I did so in the spirit of improvement and collaboration. I was reverted and I am no longer trying to add those changes to the article. But maybe someone else sitting on the sidelines has an idea to discuss or to even try out. That's within policy, Fbifriday is proposing to lock a consensus for the present version of this sentence. That's fair if we have a consensus that we should do that, but at present, there's a discussion, not a consensus. That means some other editor could, within policy, make changes to the article since it isn't protected right now. Andrevan@ 03:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Any external editor coming in here and making a change would immediately be reverted by someone and referred to the ongoing talk page discission regarding that sentence. That's the point: This is now a thing. There is no consensus that a change is even needed, based off the assertions of several editors above(including myself, before this whole long debate started), the sentence is fine as is. Because this is now a thing, it should stay as is until decided by consensus. Fbifriday (talk) 04:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, that's already the case. You don't need a consensus on there being no consensus. Andrevan@ 04:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I was not attacking you, in any way shape or form, I was simply saying that the emphatic defense of being able to edit the sentence, despite no clear consensus above in a situation where consensus is required, due to edits being reverted, and there being clear disagreements amongst contributing editors regarding wording, context, and whether or not the thing needs to be changed at all, isn't helping the idea that it should be edited boldly, or without consensus. Fbifriday (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I do not claim to have the ability to edit the sentence right now since clearly, I've been reverted and there's an ongoing discussion on my proposal/idea. Andrevan@ 03:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Claims of voting fraud, attempt to prevent presidential transition

Fbifriday, what are you talking about? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I just posted on your talk, that was my mistake, I misread the edit history. There was clearly no 24hr BRD problem. Fbifriday (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Since the addition improves the heading, I have restored it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

(Changed heading to correspond to article heading) It doesn't, it just makes it longer. Collins: "A claim is something which someone says which they cannot prove and which may be false". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Timeline

I reverted removing the timeline because I don't think an "unsightly" hatnote is a valid reason to remove it. If that discussion moves it you should adjust it after that. Andrevan@ 22:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

To resolve the "unsightly" issue (I admit I've never seen such a hatnote), I have provided a typical hatnote that leads to a list of all the relevant Trump/Russia timelines. I think this is better than pointing to only one of the many relevant timelines. They are the result of the OCD efforts of an "all long articles are too long and must be split" editor, making it hard to find information with a single search on a single page. I hope this resolves the matter. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good to me Andrevan@ 02:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I couldn't figure out what caused the issue (didn't see it on the actual "Timeline" page it was linking to), and my complaint at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_July_8#Template:For_timeline was ignored, so, considering how many non-editors look at this page every day, I removed it until the underlying problem got fixed. Don't know how your edit got rid of it but that'll do. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Siena ranking 2022

Can you add this source to the lead in the historical rankings section? Source. This is the only other scholarly ranking besides CSPAN that was released after his presidency since there is consensus to put in rankings once the presidency has been done. Interstellarity (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, I didn’t ask you to change the text in the lead, but to add another in-text citation that supports this. Interstellarity (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The text in the lead was not changed as "one of the worst" still applies. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Nothing should be added to the lead that isn't in the body. I added the survey to the body, and now I've added a duplicate of the cite to the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)