Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 134

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 130←Archive 132Archive 133Archive 134Archive 135Archive 136→Archive 140

Remove "dangerously" from False statements

Remove "dangerously" from paragraph involving COVID-19 on false statements subsection. The term is bombastic serves no purpose except to appeal to emotion, falls under WP:NEWSSTYLE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Kingofthedead (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Kingof... Are you aware that you just teamed up with OP to circumvent the 24-hour BRD restriction on this page? OP deleted that word less than 24 hours before your repeat removal. The "danger" is from the cited sources. It is not contrary to NEWSSTYLE, which is a supplement to a guideline. As such it does not negate NPOV and V. I suggest you reinstate it to avoid the appearance of a DS violation. An editor was recently sanctioned in a similar situation. SPECIFICO talk 00:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: Oh sorry about that. Wasn't aware of that rule. Kingofthedead (talk) 06:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
"Not necessary" is not the same as "not neutral", and emphasis is not the same as editorialising. His behaviour and the delay it engendered materially increased the danger, and it's perfectly neutral to acknowledge that per the existing version.Pipsally (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I never said it was the same thing - I said that it is a non neutral word that isn't strictly necessary for understanding, and thus should not be included. Of course it's dangerous to delay responding to a pandemic - that's a big fat duh moment. Anyone reading it sees it awkwardly because dangerous adds literally nothing more to the sentence that isn't already there/implied - the word can be removed without causing any harm to user comprehension/accuracy/precision of the sentence, and thus it should be. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
That sounds self-contradictory. SPECIFICO talk 16:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Please explain how - short statements like this do nothing to help discussion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Come off it. If something needs implied understanding then it fundamentally is not written as clearly as it could be. You might be smart enough to get that implication, but that doesn't mean everyone is. Pipsally (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd appreciate if you'd remain civil here, which comments like "come off it" aren't. There is no additional information added by the word "dangerously" in this sentence. If it is intended to convey additional information, it needs to be expanded as "dangerously" is not useful information (what was the danger, who was the danger to, etc). Bottom line, it does not serve the intended purpose of conveying information as it's redundant to the other parts of the sentence. It is editorializing to explicitly point out an inherent property of something - for example if I said "yellow school bus", you would wonder why I am pointing out that it is yellow. The choice of adding additional, redundant or unnecessary words is the very definition of editorializing - making an editorial decision that does not meaningfully change the information provided. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
The danger is expaneded upon elsewhere in the article. A one-word summary gives context for readers less well-informed than you. Please stop saying it's "adding" anything, when it is abundantly sourced. SPECIFICO talk 18:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
That is not at all what I am saying when I use the word "adding". I am not at all suggesting that it cannot be sourced. Wikipedia is not obligated to copy exactly the wording of sources, and in fact, it is suggested that we do not copy the exact wording in reliable sources and "de-bias-ify" it before including the information in articles. Just because sources say "dangerously" does not mean we must include it - that can easily be inferred from the rest of the sentence, and as such the inclusion of that word just makes the sentence unnecessarily longer. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
That is not what WP editors do. Please review WP:NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 20:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Sure: The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view and Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone. As I said, we summarize - we do not quote exactly - and even when sources say it was "dangerous" we do not have to include that, because that is endorsing that point of view. So yes, it is what Wikipedia editors do - we do not parrot the wording of sources, we write an encyclopedia article based on information included but without (as much as possible) the inherent bias/point of view that the news articles/other RS take. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
No. That's not our policy. Anyway, show us your sources that say it was not dangerous. SPECIFICO talk 20:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
There are plenty of places in the world where school buses aren't yellow, and even where they are calling it yellow would only be including accurate and non editorial information. You also need to look at the the definition of editorialising, since those additional word would certainly change the meaning- that's the whole point. As for civility, come back when you stop throwing around phrases like "big fat duh moment". Goes both ways.Pipsally (talk) 03:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Do you go around climbing into electricity substations. Pipsally (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Wording

Hi everyone! I have seen people on this talk page repeatedly make allegations that this article is biased against Donald Trump. Many editors then proudly cite Wikipedia's policy of using verifiable sources - which have undoubtedly been anti-Trump (and for good reason, I might add!) - as well as a sub-article called "Talk:Donald_Trump/Response_to_claims_of_bias". But at the time of this writing, the last paragraph of the lead section states "The Senate voted 57–43 to convict, which was short of the required two-thirds majority and thereby acquitted Trump of the charge of inciting insurrection in the January 6, 2021 attack". Even as a European strongly anti-Trump person myself, it doesn't take a lot of brain to realize that writing "short of the required two-thirds majority" is a HUGE bias. Trump was acquitted - neutral and point-of-fact, even if I personally disagree strongly with the acquittal myself. Stating what would need to happen FOR conviction AFTER acquittal heads into blatantly point-of-view-territory and DOES give credence to anybody calling this article biased. In a court of law, a person is automatically assumed to be innocent, and evidence - as well as a jury - would cause a guilty verdict. This wording has the opposite effect; it seems as though Wikipedia has already deemed Trump guilty and is trying to describe how close to conviction the trial came. I have not checked who added that wording, but the most active editors here may point out that they didn't write that (or maybe they did, I haven't checked the log), Even so, you should all be made aware now that any future arguments on this talk page about bias against Trump on Wikipedia can use this exact type of circumstance to point out where many Wikipedia editors' loyalties on politics lie - not with point-of-fact or verifiable sources (which have very much described Trump's acquittal and the high chances of that happening even WAY before acquittal), but with whoever adds the information. If that's not supposed to be the case, then add even higher levels of protection for super-controversial subjects, to make only editors fluent in Wikipedia's policies add information and precisely to avoid this kind of biased incident. Thank you for hearing me out. 84.202.84.209 (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

IMO the last sentence is too much detail for the lead which simply read "was acquitted" before the last change, and now another sentence added even more. It'll get changed again before long. The wording in the body is correct, 'though. 57 senators voted for conviction, 10 shy of the 67 senators required to convict Trump. A Senate trial isn't a court of law, so due process doesn't apply, and Senators are both judge and jury and set their own rules, including—in this case—with some of them colluding with the defense attorneys. This article explains it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
How about changing the language to something like: "Trump was aquitted with a 57–43 vote by the Senate to convict. (A two-thirds majority is required to convict.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
This is definitely WP:RECENT, it doesn't matter how many people voted to convict what matters is that he was acquitted. A sentence in the lead saying he was acquitted and a more in depth explanation in the body is all that is warranted Anon0098 (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
One strong indication that it is not WP:RECENT to list the vote count (I don't have specific wording in mind) is that the vote count in Johnson's impeachment is still quite famous. It appears, not that that's soooo relevant, in the first paragraph of Andrew Johnson. Gershonmk (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I think this is a good point. Wikipedia isn't supposed to stray from the topic to describe some alternative topic. This is not the article on impeachment in the United States - this article should at most list the vote and that he was acquitted. If people really think this explanation is required, it should be in an {{efn}} - not in the lead itself. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
{{efn}} seems like a good compromise to me, because I do think the line is currently about the right length.Gershonmk (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
This is an important point that all talk page participants should read. There is no point in pretending that the writing of this article isn't biased against Donald Trump. It's very obvious when reading the article that it has been written with the motivation to criticise the subject, and not only to document events historically. This is not helped by persistent accusations of bias that come from people who are very clearly motivated by support of Donald Trump and cannot reconcile that there is extensive reliable content that reflects negatively on the subject. We need to focus purely on documenting events without implying that Trump's actions are bad, and should let them speak for themselves. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree whole-heartedly 120%. This bias against Republicans is prevalent in other articles, too; my suggestion, for a start (although this wouldn’t fix the issue) would be to put “Critics believe” in front of statements like these. Hermit7 (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of a demonstrably false opinion

In the section titled "COVID-19 pandemic", under the subsection entitled "World Health Organization", the sentence is included - "In May and April, Trump accused the WHO of "severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus" and alleged without evidence that the organization was under Chinese control and had enabled the Chinese government's concealment of the origins of the pandemic."

I believe that this sentence should be changed to simply say - "In May and April, Trump accused the WHO of "severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus" and claimed that the organization was under Chinese control and had enabled the Chinese government's concealment of the origins of the pandemic."

Saying that Trump "alleged without evidence" the supposed Chinese control over the WHO is intellectually dishonest, as it is discounting what may be perceived as legitimate evidence, and contradicts this article's requirement for neutrality on the topic. As Trump's statement is a matter of complex opinion that can be logically argued both for and against, the wording in this article should be more neutral and not try to prove either side correct, but simply state the facts about what Trump said, without the unnecessary addition of accusing Trump of making the allegation without evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:6000:AD80:B81F:9A00:D4C1:7F96 (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources (some of which are cited in the article right now) overwhelmingly agree that there was no evidence for it that was anywhere near solid. The argument as to whether those sources are correct or not what Wikipedia concerns itself with. We write about what reliable sources say - not what "the truth" is. If you have reliable sources that state that there is evidence that "the organization was under Chinese control..." please provide them here for discussion. The article is not going to be changed just because you personally disagree with the reliable sources. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Only the BBC citation actually says this. Let's see if there are others? Gershonmk (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Found some sources, although they aren't all directly calling out the WHO, they show some of the influence the CCP has over it, despite contributing such little in money.[1][2][3]Prins van Oranje (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
So, by your own statement, the sources you found don't say what Trump was saying? How are they useful, then? Heck, the first one is explicitly an opinion piece. --Khajidha (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2020/04/29/commentary/world-commentary/chinese-health-organization/
  2. ^ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/04/world-health-organization-blame-pandemic-coronavirus/609820/
  3. ^ https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4050775
The references aren’t reliable; otherwise there are plenty of other cases in which references should be reliable but aren’t. If I linked an article accusing Trump, that’s fine, but if I link an article defending Trump, that’s false balance. This is the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermit7 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Lead - five deaths at storming of Capitol

(@Berchanhimez: I moved your edits from my Talk page to this one. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC) )
You may have inadvertently reverted edits made to improve the grammar/flow of that part of the article in this edit. Please consider reverting to the content present immediately prior to your edit there, instead of readding content that was edited out, or alternatively, please post on the talk page why you think your version is better. If you do not discuss your reversion on the talk page of the article, I intend to, after waiting another 24 hours from now, readd the changes made by myself and Koala Butternut in these edits. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

To expand, the riot did not result in the deaths of five people. Three people died of medical emergencies, and the locations of those deaths mean they can hardly be connected to the riot at all. Hence why any "caused" or "resulted in" language is inappropriate. Furthermore, the evacuation of the Capitol building should be mentioned before the deaths per chronology - the building was evacuated before the deaths which are part of the "aftermath". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

There were actually five edits involved in deleting the mention of the five deaths from the lead. The first one changed the gerund clause to an adjective subordinate clause. The second one spun the deaths off into a separate sentence and called the riot an "event." The third one changed "event" back to "riot." The fourth one deleted "riot", and the fifth one deleted the sentence, calling it "trivial in nature, also is very short." My edit is based on the body of the article and on the sources. The NYT has a graphic description of the "medical emergency" that killed Boyland. She was crushed/trampled in the tunnel on the west side of the Capitol where rioters were trying to break through the police line. It’s the same "event" where Officer Boylan was crushed in the door. Greeson had a history of high blood pressure, and in the midst of the excitement, suffered a heart attack, according to his wife. He was was standing in a throng of fellow Trump loyalists on the west side of the Capitol, according to the NYT. The sources don’t mention where exactly Philips was located when he had the stroke, but DC police mentioned him as one of the four who died in and around the Capitol. It isn’t our place to speculate whether Philips and Greeson would also have had the medical emergencies resulting in their deaths at another place and time. Per the sources, they were on Capitol grounds during the storming of the Capitol, not an ideal time and place for professional medical assistance. So, yeah, "resulting in five deaths" seems justified and WP:DUE for the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem per se with the inclusion, but I do think that the evacuation needs to be in the same sentence as the event itself, and the deaths, if included, should be in a separate sentence. I also agree with the comment by Iamreallygoodatcheckers below, in that the deaths are likely undue for the lead of this biographical article, but not strongly enough to argue against inclusion at this time. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards not including this. If it is going to be added it shouldn't be as stubby sentence that interrupts the flow. I'm not sure why mentioning the death count is significant for the lead itself, the lead is supposed to be very brief. Does 5 people dying have a lot to do with Trump himself? I would say not really, probably WP:UNDUE, at least for the lead. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

There were five deaths involved in the events, but this is not useful information here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The point of mentioning the five deaths is an implicit statement that the event was violent, irrespective of how people died. It wasn't just a "benign" riot, but it was so violent that several people died. The article does not yet mention that some 140 police officers were injured, some quite seriously. Bdushaw (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it should be mentioned in the prose - but the article and lead are already too long and unwieldy at this time, and it should be removed from the lead as the more important pieces of information are the storming itself and the evacuation of people inside. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I would be ok with removing "5 deaths" if there was wording indicating how violent the incident was. "stormed" doesn't cut it, really. The incident is one of the most shocking in American history, per RS; set up and initiated by Trump - it deserves an accurate representation in the lead. I can't think of a better alternative to "5 deaths", but perhaps other can. Bdushaw (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Bdushaw IMO saying Congress was evacuated, as it says now, implies this was violent. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

There were only 4 deaths "at storming of the Capitol". Sicknick died the following day(https://www.uscp.gov/media-center/press-releases/loss-uscp-colleague-brian-d-sicknick) from a stroke and even texted his brother after the fact saying he was fine(https://www.propublica.org/article/officer-brian-sicknick-capitol). Xcerptshow (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Per your sources: passed away due to injuries received ... was injured while physically engaging with protesters (Capitol Police press release), died Thursday of injuries he sustained while trying to protect the Capitol from a mob of violent rioters ... the family got word that Brian Sicknick had a blood clot and had had a stroke (Pro Publica). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Downplaying impeachments

Can it possibly be that the word "impeach" doesn't appear until 535 words into this article's intro? The poorly composed first paragraph informs the reader that Trump was both an "American media personality" and a "television personality" (!), but not that he bears the distinction of being the only U.S. president impeached twice (and all in just one term). That lame graf has many problems, but at the very least it should read "... from 2017 to 2021, during which he became the only U.S. president to be impeached twice." I don't plan to do it, or get active on this article, but this shortcoming is so glaring that it had to be brought to the attention of WPers active on the article. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not a shortcoming. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a trivia board/collection, and this is not a page to just elevate every negative thing about Trump. Being impeached twice is not somehow more important than literally every other detail of his life - this is a biography of him entirely, not that one part of his life. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Please review MOS:OPEN. This is not a news article or an op ed. Trump lived 70 years before becoming president, and that deserves mention chronologically. Anon0098 (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I also find it absolutely fascinating that you think this article is downplaying impeachments considering it appears in some form 62 times in this page alone. Most people would say that it is overplaying impeachment Anon0098 (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak is up front in his lead. It's kind of the same thing. SPECIFICO talk 22:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, then, I suppose such "trivialities" as Andrew Johnson’s impeachment, Richard Nixon’s resignation, Abe Lincoln’s assassination and FDR’s death in office should be expunged from the leads of their WP articles. Meantime, Trump’s “Apprentice” is so not trivial that we should repeat it – in a first paragraph that is far too substance-free – in case the reader missed it in the first sentence? Please. History will enshrine him, first and foremost, not as a reality TV character, but as a twice-impeached president. And an encyclopedia article on a historically important figure should open with a focus on his historical importance. Over and out. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
But, to respond to the suggestion that it's trivia: We could say something like "...was twice impeached for violations of the presidential oath of office" SPECIFICO talk 22:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
If you wish to expunge it from the lead of those articles, by all means go to their talk pages and argue your stance. But at this point all you're doing is arguing for WP:WHATABOUTX which holds no water. Anon0098 (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I could see something being mentioned in the lead, just not sure what. SPECIFICO inserted it as part of the second sentence here with the wording , during which time he was twice impeached for violations of his oath of office Not a fan of the placement or wording. PackMecEng (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually looking it over more, I think the current mention of the impeachments is fine for the lead. Perhaps condense and bring the two together but redundant mention is not great. PackMecEng (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I am just as surprised as Cjhanley, but my shock is over the word billionaire not being mention until the 1262nd word in the article. How can it be that Trump's distinction as the first and only billionaire to ever become a US president is not delivered to the reader in the first paragraph of the lead? It is a glaring omission of an essential descriptor of the person named in this article. I leave it to all of you to fix this. I'm out. JHelzer💬 23:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Lead text

I placed the 2 impeachments in the opening paragraph here. The edit was reverted. Please indicate support or opposition to the insertion below.

  • Support per my comment above. It is his most unusual achievement. SPECIFICO talk 00:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per my comment above. Already mentioned in the lead, adding it to the second sentence is ridiculous. PackMecEng (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Trump's impeachment's should not be mentioned in the first sentence of this article or the first paragraph, which is only 3 sentences in length. The lead is supposed to be as bare as bare can get. MOS:OPEN states that we shouldn't get into "specifics" of the article. To add that he was impeached twice not only is redundant, but is giving massive undue weight to the impeachment. To put the impeachment in the lead would be to say impeachment was equivalent in weight to his entire business and television career along with his presidency. This is the most ridiculous proposal I could imagine on this article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose strongly agree with Iamreallygoodatcheckers. "Most unusual achievement" does not qualify for the opening paragraph. Anon0098 (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as undue for the first paragraph/second sentence. And SPECIFICO should not ever insert text when it is being actively discussed on the talk page again. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support some mention, though this is too long. Everyone should be worrying about WP:RECENTISM but see the Andrew Johnson lede, which is definitely in line with his historical profile, for an example of how the longer view might play out. Gershonmk (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Andrew Johnson's first paragraph is significantly longer than Trump's first one. I suppose the consensus for this article is for the first paragraph to be super short. Maybe if one day the first paragraph is as long as Andrew Johnson's we could have this discussion, but that's not the case today. I'm not worried about WP:RECENTISM; I'm worried about WP:UNDUE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Excellent point. I qualify my response with this -- I think that you shouldn't have to read down as far as you do to get to the impeachments, but I agree that adding it now constituts UNDUE. Gershonmk (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Right now it's in chronological order, I believe thats in accordance with guidelines. It would be odd to throw this in higher up in the lead paragraphs, messing up the chronological order. I feel there may be no way to get what you want. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The lead is not in chronological order, nor should it be. SPECIFICO talk 00:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
No I mean, just look at the Johnson page, for example. Or Bill Clinton. Or Richard Nixon. The opening paragraph here is unusually short, and if expanded a bit an impeachment mention would be warranted and not constitute UNDUE. Gershonmk (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Clearly, I agree. Nobody's given any reasoned argument to the contrary. Just "ridiculous", the Joe DiMaggio example to the contrary notwithstanding. SPECIFICO talk 00:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
If you all want to throw his final impeachment above the 2016 election and his entire presidency and campaign, go ahead. It would confuse readers quite a bit. Hopefully, enough for them to close the tab and leave this terrible page. If you want to expand the opening paragraph that's fine, but it shouldn't be gradually expanded by first throwing in a sentence fragment about his impeachments. There should be a proposition made, that includes several sentences (similar to Johnson and others) and is more than equivocating his impeachments to his entire presidency and business career. The proposal here that you're supporting would only include a sentence fragment. SPECIFICO the introduction is loosely in chronological order, right now the second impeachment follows the 2020 election, which followed his first impeachment. In my opinion, that makes logical sense and is in chronological order. "Nobody's given any reasoned argument to the contrary" I have cited MOS:OPEN and WP:UNDUE. You haven't cited one guideline/policy except you personally believe this is his "most unusual achievement", I'm sorry, but your opinion shouldn't pave the way for a massive NPOV violation on one of the most notable people in the world. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Au contraire. He's elected in the first sentence. The impeachments are his most noteworthy life event and among the most notable events in recent US history. Please see the Joe DiMaggio article and countless others (Kirk Douglas, Jonas Salk, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Dick Cheney) that highlight the signal events of the subjects' lives up top. Please understand, I have no opinion about this. I am referring to the overwhelming weight of RS narratives, not something I cooked up on the fly. SPECIFICO talk 02:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't know a whole lot about Joe DiMaggio, but his article has no relation on this one, neither do the other ones you mentioned. Maybe DiMaggio is mainly notable for his hitting streak. Trump is not mainly notable for being impeached twice. Right now the lead really just serves to define the subject, I'm open to expansion that might include impeachment. It seems like the events mentioned in the leads of Nixon, Cheney, Eisenhower, etc. were all legacy's that built over time. I'm not a fortune teller, I don't know if Trump's impeachments will be what comes to mind instantly when you hear his name in 50 years, like it is with Nixon. Right now that's not the case. Of course there's RS coverage of the impeachments, but no where near the RS of his entire business career, entire presidency, and media career. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Since you don't know about DiMaggio, and maybe don't know about the others I cited, it's pointless for you to cite them in a baseless and false refutation of the principle I demonstrated. SPECIFICO talk 02:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I know Nixon's impeachment is really notable for him and Dick Cheney is generally notable for being not liked. Those are fine in their intro's because that is quite literally one of the main things their known for. That doesn't apply here because Trump's impeachments aren't like that, at least not yet. Your principle doesn't apply here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
What news and analysis sources do you read on a regular basis? Everything I see in mainstream RS discussion belies your dismissal. SPECIFICO talk 02:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
RS has covered this, of course they have, but Trump is known for much more than impeachment. I think I've gotten my point across at this point and so have you. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
No, you've gotten nothing across, which is why I asked which sources you read. Still waiting. SPECIFICO talk 03:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
What about your sources? You're the one trying to say this is worthy enough of the 1st sentence, you should be the one listing a crap ton of sources. What do you even want me to say? Like The Washington Post, CNN, what? I've gotten across that this is clearly not giving proper weight. This really is just commonsense. That's like if I proposed Trump is a unicorn and expected you to find a source that said the contrary. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I think you guys should reset, this has gotten out of hand into WP:NPA. SPECIFICO thinks there should be a mention of the impeachments in the lede, and both Iamreallygoodatcheckers and I think that's a fine idea so long as the opening paragraph is more like the one on Richard Nixon, so that it doesn't constitute WP:UNDUE -- the way to compromise is clear, I think. What I suggest is SPECIFICO comes up with some language for an opening paragraph that would satisfy all of us. Gershonmk (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Gershonmk, I appreciate you trying to reach a consensus, on this discussion as well as the one about McConnell. If you want to draft a proposal thats good, but if you look above you will notice (excluding you, SPECIFICO, and myself) a lot of editors appear to be opposed to adding in his impeachment in the lead at all. I also don't know how this would work out with the long lasting RfC on the lead being discussed above. If you or anyone else draft a proposal other editors and myself, I'm sure, will be holding the proposal to the highest scrutiny. I've said this before, it's an act of congress to change the lead, but go ahead and make a proposal if you wish. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, as I said, I agree, definitely not worth for me to try but I'm open to supporting one. Anyway this got out of hand. Gershonmk (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose putting it in the lead paragraph. It should be in the lead section - as it is, in chronological order with all the other notable stuff about him - but not the lead paragraph. Maybe someday history will judge that the two impeachments were the most notable things about his long and eventful life, but at this point we are in no position to sort out what he will be most remembered for. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Remove "Support from far-right" subsection

The far-right is a small minority of Trump supporters and it is WP:UNDUE to give an entire subsection about them. Also the racial views section does justice to the reason this subsection exist, kind of redundant in an already long article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the section should be removed, since 75 million people obviously aren't Nazis, but I do think that this should be amply covered in the article, given his penchant for defending those same far-right supporters ("very fine people", "stand back and stand by"), as well as many WP:RS covering the subject. Thanoscar21talkcontribs 23:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
This is a section, tbc, that discusses supporters of his 2016 campaign. Do you object to any claims? Because I don't think it can be fairly read to imply his 63 million votes were far-right. Gershonmk (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
This needs to be covered in the article, although the specific wording and detail can be discussed here. No US president has been as explicit as Trump in legitimizing and empowering far-right and right-wing politics and extremist violence. SPECIFICO talk 00:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with SPECIFICO. The specific wording and examples chosen can be changed, but no major campaign for president has ever so blatantly hooked on to white supremacist supporters before, and that's a big deal. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Is there anything wrong with the content? IMO it reflects the sources, there's been a lot of press coverage of his far-right supporters and his defending them was important to the campaigns. Gershonmk (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree 2600:1702:2340:9470:F4D8:FA58:776:424C (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is being cited for removal, but WP:UNDUE is based on views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic, and not based on whether the far-right are just a small minority of Trump supporters. starship.paint (exalt) 13:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Remove final paragraph of "False statements" section

This is the paragraph: Some view the nature and frequency of Trump's falsehoods as having profound and corrosive consequences on democracy.[801] James Pfiffner, professor of policy and government at George Mason University, wrote in 2019 that Trump lies differently from previous presidents, because he offers "egregious false statements that are demonstrably contrary to well-known facts"; these lies are the "most important" of all Trump lies. By calling facts into question, people will be unable to properly evaluate their government, with beliefs or policy irrationally settled by "political power"; this erodes liberal democracy, wrote Pfiffner.[802] Firstly, this paragraph is pure POV and biased. Also the bulk of it focuses on one professors opinion, which is giving WP:UNDUE to this one mans opinion. His opinion is not notable enough to warrant an entire paragraph on Donald Trump's Wikipedia article. We also need to find way's to shorten this long article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's pure POV and biased, since it's directly quoting him (the professor), but it is perhaps undue weight. I'm thinking it can be condensed into this:

Some view the nature and frequency of Trump's falsehoods as having negative effects on democracy.[801] James Pfiffner, professor of policy and government at George Mason University, wrote that Trump lies differently from previous presidents, because he offers "egregious false statements that are demonstrably contrary to well-known facts"; by calling facts into question, people will be unable to properly evaluate their government, thus eroding liberal democracy.[802]

I've gone ahead and WP:BOLDly changed it; if anyone thinks that it's bad, feel free to raise any concerns. Thanoscar21talkcontribs 23:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I restored the full text. I think it's clearer and accurately conveys Pfiffner's statement. This is not UNDUE. It's typical of hundreds of such expert assessments. SPECIFICO talk 00:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd support removal. It is entirely based on one person and the language is way too strong to have that weak of a citation Anon0098 (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The section should stay. Those that remember the extensive discussion about it, will remember there was a consensus for it and that the statement had widespread RS to support it. RE "removal/weak of a citation" - Per an earlier comment, some people here have been vigorously removing citations...giving credence to my suspicion that first there is removal of citations, then there is removal of text as unsupported. Pretty bad form, intentional or otherwise. Bdushaw (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

(Besides, now we have this insane storming of the Capitol as dramatic proof of the statement.) Bdushaw (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Good point. Do we want many references regarding Trump eroding democracy? Or will people claim OVERCITE? starship.paint (exalt) 14:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The section should be removed because Pfiffner is not knowledgeable on the subject matter. If he even had a basic grasp of presidential lies then he would know that they all lie in a big way. His statement isnt based in fact, but rather opinion. Also, "egregious false statements" that are "contrary to well-known facts" is just a colorful way to simply say "lie". Xcerptshow (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

You should read the whole article by Pfiffner. The first three words of the body are: All presidents lie. He goes on to point out that other presidents have told lies from legitimate lies concerning national security, to trivial misstatements, to shading the truth, to avoiding embarrassment, to serious lies of policy deception. starship.paint (exalt) 14:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Deep bias needs to be addressed immediately

According to Wikipedia’s NOR principle, No Original Research, this article is deeply biased. If you say that it isn’t, you’re saying that other articles are biased the other way. This is the problem with Wikipedia; if a Republican viewpoint is biased, a Democratic viewpoint should be biased. But according to the article, Republican viewpoints are biased while Democratic viewpoints are fine. For example: Donald Trump is racist. If you take that and look at the fact that many people disagree with this, a much more neutral point of view is “Critics believe” Donald Trump is racist, or “Some people believe” Donald Trump is racist, or “It is debated whether” Donald Trump is racist.

But no. Donald Trump is racist. No argument, no debate. Do you see my point here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermit7 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. We just repeat what the WP:RS say. I know this is repeated in the section above, but it's true. We just reflect what the sources say. We'd happily include more conservative sources, but the problem is that there are only about two reliable conservative-leaning sources; WSJ and The Hill. Thanoscar21talkcontribs 23:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Oh, and the racist part? "Very fine people", and tweeting a video with "white power" seems to be a little racist. Thanoscar21talkcontribs 23:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
No 2600:1702:2340:9470:F4D8:FA58:776:424C (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
No Prins van Oranje 15:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, we go with what RS say, No we can't use how we interperate his actions to claim he is racist.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Siblings and niece

@SNUGGUMS: I beg to differ with your edit summary. no good reason to remove: For one thing, brothers Fred Jr. and Robert are dead, so that sentence would need some reworking. feels redundant: If it's redundant to mention the older sister and the niece in the infobox because of the Family of Donald Trump page, why are the names of the siblings important enough to list in the Early life section? They are all mentioned on the Family page, too. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

When the article text says Donald is the fourth of Fred and Mary's five children, it looks incomplete without mentioning who the others were, though feel free to rephrase in accordance with how his brothers died. As for the infobox, if a general family link is included, then just using that helps avoid bloating the field on relatives. No objections to talking about his niece within article prose. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Judiciary section

@SPECIFICO: I largely reverted this edit of yours to the judiciary section. We've had most of this material in here for quite some time, and I feel it's important to explain, briefly, the key battles involving the Gorsuch/Kavanaugh/Barrett nominations. All three were atypically high-profile and intensely significant, even for Supreme Court nominations: Gorsuch because of Garland and the nuclear option, Kavanaugh for the Blasey Ford allegation, and Barrett because the nomination was on the eve of the election. I feel that's worth the short space allotted to it. This is one of the Trump legacies that will reverberate for a long time. Neutralitytalk 00:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it should be retained, and the details are appropriate. But I think needs to include the date of RBG's death and a more direct comparison of that last-minute approval with the Senate's earlier refusal to consider Garland. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I think SPECIFICO is right here. The additional information is unnecessary, and I think cuts to stuff like this will help make the article more readable. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

123, please self-revert your undo of Neutrality's revert. He raised his objection on talk and we should now discuss, not edit-war. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, SPECIFICO, I appreciate that. Onetwothreeip: In your edit summary, you said you were removing "historical assessments." That is not true: the historical assessment material had been removed from the article hours earlier. Your edit also not only re-made a challenged edit, it also reverted changes to things like verb tense (making them incorrect), and introduced redundancy (thanks to your edit, the Federalist Society is now mentioned twice in the same paragraph). The practices of (1) making misleading edit summaries, (2) making "blind" reverts, and (3) re-making edits challenged by multiple editors is discourteous, and it's not consistent with encyclopedia policy. Please self-revert and please don't do things like this again. Neutralitytalk 18:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Neutrality, I don't have a problem with changing verb tense and removing multiple mentions and it's unfortunate if constructive changes were reverted as well. I did not say I was removing historical assessments. My full edit summary is Restored revision 1007777128 by Jontel (talk): The reduction in size of the Judiciary section was constructive and beneficial, and these historical assessments are too contentious and early. The version I restored was before the historical assessments were added. If you wish to raise concerns about my edit summaries, please provide evidence for your claims on my user talk page.
To the content, we do not need these extended commentaries on the events. These may be due in articles about the judicial appointments, but it's too much information on this biography. A sentence or two on the main issues of each Supreme Court nomination may be relevant here, but we don't need to be elaborating on politicians did wrong. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
There are two significant factors and one corollary. Factors: 1) Trump went with the Federalist Society from start to finish without having any concept what their list was or why they were promoting it. 2) Trump thought he was buying votes on the court to rule in his favor on his unprecedented "constitutional" challenges to due process and normal American governance. Corallary 1a- his appointees continued a downward spiral in republican nominees, where once folks like Earl Warren, Rehnquist, and sometimes Roberts, showed an understanding of the role of the Court and real world interests and equities that brought cases before them. These summary points should be stressed. There's plenty of sourcing for these points, but I don't have it handy at the moment. The spectacles of Kavanaugh and Barrett are themselves not about Trump. SPECIFICO talk 22:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Space4Time3Continuum2x and MelanieN have quite rightly restored the material to as it was before your edits. It's very regrettable that you didn't do so yourself. On the actual issue, I'm baffled by your comment. "A sentence or two on the main issues of each Supreme Court nomination" is exactly what you removed from the article: One sentence on the Gorsuch nomination, one sentence on Kavanaugh, and two sentences on Barrett. If you are no longer pushing for that removal, then we can close this talk section. Neutralitytalk 23:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd rather a sentence or two on the nominations altogether, briefly stating when they were and maybe the Senate votes. I don't mean to imply that we should discuss them in much detail. However, I also don't support more than minor mentions of how Donald Trump has appointed conservative judges. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
The beaming Coney Barrett at her infectious Covid-spreader reveal is alone worth 2 sentences. SPECIFICO talk 06:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I have restored the material to the article while we discuss it here (the same material that Neutrality restored). The removal has been challenged, and long term content should not be removed without consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Under "Storming of the US Capitol" section. Inaccurate information and improperly cited or uncited sources

Under "Storming of the US Capitol" section. The sentence "Thousands of those supporters then stormed the Capitol around 1 pm" is inaccurate. According to USA Today [1] and multiple other sources including Wikipedia [2] , the storming of the Capitol was initiated before and at a minimum started while the speech was going on.

They also picked out quotes characterizing the speech as violent and selectively left out the "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." portion which is deceptive. [3] "Five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died in the riot." It also claims the cop died "in the riot." even in the citation it says that he died at a hospital.(cited on page) What it fails to mention is he died at 2130 the following night. [4] The citation is from a NYT article. The NYT has made retractions due to inaccurately reporting on Sicknick. Xcerptshow (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The USA Today source says that they gathered at 6 AM, but that was just going to be a protest. If go down, the protest only became violent when Trump said, "We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore,” Trump said. “So we are going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue – I love Pennsylvania Avenue – and we are going to the Capitol." Saying "peacefully and patriotically" at first is fine, but then he said to, "fight like hell". That would be like me saying, "peacefully make your voice heard on Wikipedia", and then saying, "Vandalize Wikipedia, and if you don't you're not going to have an encyclopedia anymore". About Sicknick, he died from injuries sustained from the riot. I can't find any mention of him in the article (command + F), so if you're talking about a different article, you need to take your concerns there. Thanks, Thanoscar21talkcontribs 16:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanoscar21, I am not sure that this comparison is synonymous. I think the issue is the word "fight" since it's connotations can change so greatly based on context. On Wikipedia, vandalism is inherently negative; in the realm of politics, to fight could be positive (i.e. fight for rights) or negative (i.e. fighting in war, perhaps). Moreover, I'm not sure if the use of "fight like hell" was used directly in relation to the supporters but rather senators and congress members. (I am not disputing that it was indirectly but I feel we cannot make such subjective assumptions without breaching NPOV.) Wheras, the "marching [...] to peacefully and patriotically" bit is explicitly in reference to the supporters and the subsequent riot. A potential solution for this is to remove the specific quotes and provide a more general description since there is a separate article which can provide a more complete sense of the speech. It seems inevitable that attempting to sum up the whole thing in a few sentences is bound to be a source of conflict.
I hope my thoughts are clear enough to be cohesive and I look forward to hearing back from you; thank you, ritenerektalk :) 21:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Ritenerek, he says, "fight like hell," and then a few sentences later, "we're going to the Capitol." But now, this is just getting into original research. What the original user said "thousands of supporters then stormed" was incorrect. According to USA Today, the rioters only turned violent after Trump said, "fight like hell". Maybe he didn't mean it like that, but that's certainly what the rioters thought. Thanks, Thanoscar21talkcontribs 13:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanoscar21, ah I understand, still getting acquainted with the concept of neutrality. Cheers, ritenerektalk :) 13:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2021/01/06/dc-protests-capitol-riot-trump-supporters-electoral-college-stolen-election/6568305002/
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol
  3. ^ https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-01-13/transcript-of-trumps-speech-at-rally-before-us-capitol-riot
  4. ^ https://www.uscp.gov/media-center/press-releases/loss-uscp-colleague-brian-d-sicknick

RFC notification

I have started a discussion at [1]] regarding whether the events of January 2021 should be considered a coup in the United States. Your comments are appreciated. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

trump

he is not the president anymore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.33.27 (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Do we say he is?Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended Protection edit request

May someone please edit Donald_Trump#Post-presidency to include the following sentence: Trump accepted an invitation to speak at CPAC for 2021. BigCheese76 (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure it's all that relevant, it's one speech at one event. I would rather we wait a bit and can thus determine what is and is not significant historically.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 Not done. See above comment by Slatersteven βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 15:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

"refused to concede defeat until January 7"

Interstellarity replaced "refused to concede defeat" with "refused to concede defeat until January 7". No source was cited in the body supporting this change. It's my impression that, although Biden's inaguration did proceed, and Trump did depart for Mar-a-Lago, he never formally conceded. I reverted the edit. Interstellarity, do you have a source indicating that he did concede on January 7? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 23:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It probably refers to this. I don't think he conceded "defeat". He conceded that A new administration will be inaugurated on January 20. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@ONUnicorn: Muboshgu pointed out a source that supported my edit that got reverted. Trump made that speech the day after the Capitol storming. I usually provide sources for my edits. However, there are almost no sources in the lead and that’s why I didn’t provide a source. Interstellarity (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
As others have pointed out, he didn't concede defeat. As for the source, there shouldn't be sources in the lead because the lead should summarize the body, which is where the sources should go. Your edit changed the lead, but not the body, and didn't cite sources anywhere.~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Interstellarity, Trump didn't concede defeat though. To concede, he would have to acknowledge that he lost fair and square. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: I understand now. Thanks for clarifying. Interstellarity (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Just one more quick point, in his statement yesterday about the SCOTUS decision on his taxes, he says These are attacks by Democrats willing to do anything to stop the almost 75 million people (the most votes, by far, ever gotten by a sitting president) who voted for me in the election—an election which many people, and experts, feel that I won. I agree! He left DC, but he hasn't conceded. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I think it is clear he had not conceded defeat, even now.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
So, can we use this to bar him from running in 2024? If, as he believes, he won the 2020 election, then he wouldn't be eligible to run in 2024. Tell him he can't run again until he admits that he lost in 2020. --Khajidha (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
No as this is Wikipedia, and what we say has no legal standing outside of Wikipedia.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
You do understand that I was just making a joke? --Khajidha (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
We are not a comedy club.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Tell that to EEng. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
"Pedants have a reputation for humorlessness, but for Wikipedians a sense of humor is at the core of the good-faith collaboration that defines the project." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
MAybe, but I can hardly say to user X "see wp:forum" and then ignore user Y can I?Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Add U.S. on to birthplace in infobox

This would be more consistent with nearly every other article on someone born in the USA and with other presidents. However, the U.S. should not be linked to the United States, per guidelines. This would change consensus 2. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I was actually about to do this anyway. It should be New York City, United States. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

“McConnells comments are undue weight”

No they’re not. The content should be restored.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1006872704&oldid=1006867643

soibangla (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

IMO The content does constitute undue weight but only because the section on the trial is significantly too short. I suggest expanding it, maybe to roughly the same length as the first impeachment section, though the second seems to have been more important. Also, it needs a hatnote link to the trial article at least. Gershonmk (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
So you’re saying the section is too short and should be expanded, but just not with this content? soibangla (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
No, I would include this content in an expanded section. It's one of the most important things to say about the trial. But because there's nothing currently in the section except vote counts, it constitutes undue weight. Gershonmk (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
They are undue weight. This is a biography of Donald Trump - not an article about events. Any content that is directly about a specific event should be moved to the (sub)article about said event and at most a 1 paragraph summary of the event (in its entirety) should be added here - not quotes. Agree with the removal. This article is too long as it is - it's not the time to discuss adding things, it's the time to, after months, start paring it down. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree this article contains a lot of stuff that should be pulled, but the fact that the man was acquitted by his party but the party leader immediately stated in no uncertain terms that he was guilty, using the term “terrorism” (which I’d be happy to add), is certainly not something this BLP should ignore. It is the capstone of his presidency. soibangla (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Your opinions on the "capstone"-ness of this are irrelevant. It is not due for that section which is in fact a perfect example of summary style for sections that have a main article. At most, a source regarding McConnell's comment could be used as part of citing a single sentence regarding the reactions of Republicans against Trump as a whole - but a quote from one person is not due for this article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't agree with the SS point -- this is actually one-paragraph summary of TWO articles, one about the Impeachment and one about the Trial. A one-paragraph summary of each in accordance with it -- see my suggestion below -- should include something of this order. Gershonmk (talk) 03:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes it is undue weight, particularly for the lead. You would have to prove that this one quote by Mitch McConnell has received the same amount of media coverage (weight) as every other thing in the lead. You would have to say that one remark by McConnell is the same in importance as Trump winning the 2016 election, losing the 2020 election, appointing 3 Supreme Court justices, and his negotiations with North Korea. All those things have one sentence in the lead. The lead is supposed to be a very brief description of the subject, not for quotes by the Senate minority leader. The lead is already to long anyway. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
It wasn't in the lede? I think you're confused. OP is talking about a line they added to the end of the Second Impeachment section. Gershonmk (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Your right that's my mistake. I would still say that the quote is undue even there, that single quote hasn't garnered much media coverage. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, if that was really your reasoning then I think you owe OP an apology (I have other objections, vide supra.) Just google relevant terms -- it received blanket coverage. Gershonmk (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm against adding that quote. I don't see a problem with adding that McConnell and other Republican's reasoning for the acquittal, but just having a quote that is only a small part of McConnell's speech is not even right. Probably violates NPOV. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
So you're fine with including him saying an ex-president can't be impeached but you have a problem with this part?

January 6th was a disgrace. American citizens attacked their own government. They used terrorism to try to stop a specific piece of democratic business they did not like. Fellow Americans beat and bloodied our own police. They stormed the Senate floor. They tried to hunt down the Speaker of the House. They built a gallows and chanted about murdering the Vice President. They did this because they had been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth—because he was angry he’d lost an election. Former President Trump’s actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction of duty. The House accused the former President of, quote, ‘incitement.’ That is a specific term from the criminal law. Let me put that to the side for one moment and reiterate something I said weeks ago: There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day.

Well OK then. soibangla (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Obviously adding a quote of that length would be massively undue weight. I'm fine mentioning in a sentence that McConnell thought the attack was Trump's fault, but it shouldn't be presented as the only thing he said, that would be a NPOV violation. I think there should be as sentence like: "Despite McConnell giving Trump responsibility for the attack, he acquitted for blah blah." Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, this needs to be included and is not undue weight. The WP:IDONTLIKEIT removal should be reverted. --Tataral (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Tataral Iamreallygoodatcheckers soibangla I think we're all approaching the same page here, so I'll suggest a compromise edit which I don't think is WP:UNDUE:

===Second Impeachment===
On January 11, 2021, an article of impeachment charging Trump with incitement of insurrection against the U.S. government was introduced to the House.[744] The House voted 232-197 to impeach Trump on January 13, making him the first U.S. officeholder to be impeached twice.[745][746] The impeachment, which was the most rapid in history,[1] followed an unsuccessful bipartisan effort to force Trump out of office via the 25th Ammendment.[2] Ten Republicans voted for impeachment – the most members of a party ever to vote to impeach a president of their own party.[747]

References

  1. ^ https://www.axios.com/donald-trump-impeachment-process-length-clinton-nixon-020a3124-aa12-454d-b42e-a244e04096a5.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-25th-amendment-house-pence/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
===Second Impeachment Trial===
Senate Democrats asked to begin the trial immediately, while Trump was still in office, but then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked the plan.[1] On February 13, following a five-day Senate trial, Trump was acquitted when the Senate voted 57–43 for conviction, falling ten votes short of the two-thirds majority required to convict; seven Republicans joined every Democrat in voting to convict, the most bipartisan support in any Senate impeachment trial of a president.[748][749] Most Republicans voted to acquit Trump, though some thought he was guilty but that the Senate did not have jurisdiction over former Presidents (Trump had left office on January 20). Included in the latter group was Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who said, "There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day," but, "former President Trump is constitutionally not eligible for conviction."[2]
Gershonmk (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-01-13/mcconnell-rejects-speedy-senate-trial-for-trump-after-impeachment. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ https://www.republicanleader.senate.gov/newsroom/remarks/mcconnell-on-impeachment-disgraceful-dereliction-cannot-lead-senate-to-defy-our-own-constitutional-guardrails. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
@Gershonmk: that would be undue, yes, per summary style. The events of his second impeachment are already covered in great detail in their own series of articles. They merit at most one long, or two short paragraphs - in one section - which provide an overview, without quotes/extra fluff - save that for the primary article. This is also not the place to rehash reasoning, etc. Summary style would be the precursor, event itself, and the outcome of the event - i.e. what he was impeached for, the votes, and the outcome of acquittal. Discussion of others' reactions is not appropriate for this biographical article - it is appropriate for "domestic reactions to <event>" - be that its own article or a section in the main one. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, I don't really agree so let's see what other editors think. Look at the way the first impeachment is done -- two sections, each much longer than the total of these, and that was less impactful. I do think the actual quote is the least essential part, but I'm trying to reach consensus here. Gershonmk (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The other impeachment section being undue and in violation of summary style does not mean we should add more violations. In fact, this "well this other part of the article... so we must add Y!" attitude that has been displayed by many editors here for months is why this article is exceedingly long and unwieldy. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree -- that's why my proposal for this one is shorter. But no one gets to decide these things on their own, and I think this proposal has a shot at resolving the issue for everyone. Gershonmk (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok, there's a couple things here. The part about the house impeaching him if fine, all good there. The trial part up until the sentence "Most Republicans voted..." is also good, well written and great. Now the part that says "some thought he was guilty" needs to be changed to "some thought he held responsibility" because McConnell never said Trump was guilty, he said if Trump was still president he would deeply reflect on what the house managers said, thats not implying that McConnell beyond a doubt thought he was guilty. I think the last sentence just needs to be removed, it's redundant to the prior sentence and gives undue weight to McConnells speech. This article is already to long to be adding in redundant sentences. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
How about "Most Republicans voted to acquit Trump, though some held him responsible but felt the Senate . . ." I think ultimately I agree with OP that McConnell's speech is one of the most important things to come out of the trial. McConnell supporting the impeachment, letting Rs vote their conscience, etc. shaped the trial and the reason is what he said in the speech. Gershonmk (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
"Most Republicans voted to acquit Trump, though some held him responsible but felt the Senate . . ." sounds good to me. I'm not gonna lose any sleep if we add McConnells comments, but I just feel they're redundant. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Undue. McConnell refused to schedule an emergency session (citing due process which doesn't apply to Senate trials) that would have allowed the impeachment trial to take place before January 20 and then, after Trump's term had expired, argued that a former president was "constitutionally not eligible for conviction" while simultaneously arguing that he was guilty as charged and then some. Sounds like a case of eating your cake and having it to. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I trimmed the direct quotes for now—way too long. IMO the whole sentence is undue. Numerous constitutional scholars—like these two—disagree. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Space4Time3Continuum2x, I changed the first sentence back because the date is in the previous section, the comma placement was wrong, and as noted here it's important that he was still in office. You can try to get consensus to add more info about the constitutionality but IMO it's enough to show 57 disagreed. Gershonmk (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Tried a compromised edit, hopefully to your satisfaction. :) Gershonmk (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Seems to me that Included in the latter group now refers to the Senators who voted that the trial was constitutional, and McConnell wasn't one of them. The date the Democrats asked McConnell to schedule the emergency session is important because that would have given the Senate enough time to hold the trial before Trump's term ended. Trump's end of term doesn't need to be mentioned, it's in the infobox, and the vote on the constitutionality also seems redundant to me—if it had gone the other way, there wouldn't have been a trial. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Space4Time3Continuum2x, But it's the same day -- January 13 -- that is mentioned in the previous sentence: "The House voted 232–197 to impeach Trump on January 13," so readers know immediately=the 13th. I think it's responsible to mention that he'd left office because he left office in the course of this paragraph, I think most people know when a president leaves office but probably everyone, and it could be especially confusing if it ever changes. What do you think of:
Senate Democrats asked to begin the trial immediately, while Trump was still in office, but then-Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell blocked the plan. On February 11, the Senate voted 56-44 that the trial was constitutional. On February 13, following a five-day Senate trial, Trump was acquitted when the Senate voted 57–43 for conviction, falling ten votes short of the two-thirds majority required to convict; seven Republicans joined every Democrat in voting to convict, the most bipartisan support in any Senate impeachment trial of a president or former president. Most Republicans voted to acquit Trump, though some held him responsible but felt the Senate did not have jurisdiction over former presidents (Trump had left office on January 20). Included in the latter group was McConnell, who said Trump was "practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day" but "constitutionally not eligible for conviction." Gershonmk (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
onetwothreeip Please engage here before removing consensus text. And why would you remove the hatnote? Gershonmk (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
What I reverted wasn't consensus text. You've been blocked from editing before for restoring the content. The hatnote is a separate issue: I removed one of them when I removed the section break. This subsection only needs one heading and doesn't need to be split into further subsections. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
123, you reverted the same text twice without discussing it on talk. That is a DS violation. Please restore the text. SPECIFICO talk 00:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: Can you please show me where I have made two reverts of the same content within 24 hours? If I have inadvertently done so, I will certainly self-revert. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
It turns out the issue is not about making two reverts in the same day, but that I hadn't commented here in the eight days between the two reverts. That's my mistake, I thought I had commented here in that time. I wanted to bring the content to the status quo but if that's not happening I am fine to proceed. My position is that we do not need much commentary over this event, and we should rely on details that outline the facts of the impeachment, such as the votes. McConnell's comments can be placed on another article, and shouldn't be used to counterweight the fact that Trump wasn't removed by the Senate. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
If you'll review this discussion, you will see that your view was rejected. SPECIFICO talk 00:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The lead is perfect; leave it be

Shutting down this WP:TALKFORK. See #Lead sentence proposal above. (non-admin closure) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

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.

"Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality, businessman, and politician who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021." That sums him up very nicely, as it doesn't split hairs or make it sound like he is no longer a businessman. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 18:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Media personality is not his main profession, rather businessman and should come first hands down. The lead should be "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, media personality, and politician who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021." The media cites as media personality ghostwritten books (really??? So obviously he hasn't written books anyway, at least officially). Starting in the 1990s, he a guest on the Howard Stern Show (is this a media profession???) and other talk shows, promoted professional wrestling company World Wrestling Federation/Entertainment (that's a business anyhow I believe), and made several cameo film and TV appearances (cameo appearances is not a media profession either! You just appear a few seconds in a 2 hour work giving your few minutes to the film or whatever). From 2004 to 2015, Trump hosted [The Apprentice (Big deal! he appears a few minutes and the whole show is done by other. He just shouts "You're fired" and you never know based on what). If this is his media personality stuff as a main indicator, it is even misleading. He is first and foremost a businessman. His business credentials are huge and spanning decades. In real estate, hotels etc. He started at a young age in his father's company Elizabeth Trump and Son, which he later renamed the Trump Organization. He had successful real estate deals in Manhattan and New York City, developer of lodgings and golf courses around the world, owning several beauty pageants, marketing his name to many building projects and commercial products. Some unsuccessful ones, business ventures, several casinos and hotels bankruptcies, New Jersey Generals football team, the Trump University. Businessman is primary, media personality only very very secondary. Plus I believe wrong emphasis on media so-called" personality (highly overrated). We are giving the wrong impression by putting media circus as primary and business only secondary. 16:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Werldwayd, it's not his business ventures that made him notable. It's all the time he spent on the back cover of the New York Post and other tabloids dating back to the 1980s, his cameos in various movies and TV shows, other mentions in movies and songs, and then The Apprentice, which blew up his celebrity. His business is relatively small potatoes, aside from putting his name on some (now bankrupt) casinos. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Again I disagree. As indication see the size of the Donald Trump media personality page and Donald Trump business page even in Wikipedia. There is no comparison which is dominant. Plus that media citations are so much fluff... Appearing in New York Post, again, does that make somebody a media personality? A majority of the Post articles were about his businesses in New York in any case. Or at best some scandalous behaviour based on his business achievements and boasting about them. Writing books makes him a media personality? He didn't actually write The Art of the Deal. It was Schwartz not Trump. Schwarts called writing the book his "greatest regret in life, without question" and both he and the book's publisher, Howard Kaminsky, said that Trump had played quote "no role in the actual writing of the book". So writing books is bogus. And the book was about striking a business deal anyway. So just for "ghostwriting" a book, this becomes a media accolade? How about real writers then? So that media aspect including writing books is questionable as well even if it stayed 48 weeks on a list of books. It is a business book eventually. Again you mention giving names to just some bankrupt casinos? Is that how one looks on the business credentials of somebody. Oh some bankrupt casinos? How about all the buildings and real estate? How about Trump International Hotel and Tower, Trump Ocean Club International Hotel and Tower, his first major deal in Manhattan was the Grand Hyatt Hotel in 1978, Trump Taj Mahal, at in Atlantic City, New Jersey, Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts... But I digress. You want Wikipedia to emphasize trivial appearance in cameo films as proof of notability, keep it. What films if I may ask? How many minutes. When a film was filmed in a Trump location, he insisted to appear in passing for a few seconds, or else the film wouldn't be shot. Is that a media personality as well? Appearing a few seconds in a movie? People know him as a businessman. Period. Apprentice was just a sham show based on some stupid made up situations and decisions based on absolutely nothing, just his whim that particular day in which he fired people based on some personal knowledge of the person and his/her temperament not his work project that day. Not even good television for me. Just fake acting and promotion of already used up and saturated personalities. Again Apprentice is just based anyway on business projects and some charity management. Businessman is what he is known by. werldwayd (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I honestly find the ordering between media personality and businessman to be trivial, so I'm fine with either coming first. The point is, however, we no longer have that ugly second sentence about how he was a businessman before entering politics. The structure is perfect, regardless of which venture is mentioned first. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 18:09, 27 February 2021 (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.

“Distinctions” section needed for Donald Trump entry.

The Donald Trump entry is insufficient as it is missing a section on “Distinctions.” Trump had many political accolades and distinctions (Nobel Peace Prize nominations, as an example). This same “Distinctions” section is found in President Joe Biden’s entry, and as a matter of principle needs to be present in Donald Trump’s entry. 2600:1700:E1E0:FC10:DA4:C4CB:58A4:61F6 (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
He means change no-distinctions-column to distinctions-column. I agree; this should be fair and Trump should get a distinctions column if Biden gets one. I have noticed severe Democratic bias everywhere on Wikipedia, and if you’re open to changing that, Jonesey, you’ll at least actually hear what he has to say. Hermit7 (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion for lead - Two paragraphs or one?

The paragraph where it talks about Trump's foreign policy and response to Covid-19 should be split into two. It should also mention the how Trump helped establish diplomatic relations between Israel and several Arab states. Prins van Oranje (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree there is a natural paragraph break between domestic and foreign policy in the lead there. I added it recently, but it was quickly reverted. No reason other than a consensus for such a "major" (?) change should be obtained first. Perhaps we can have a discussion of that paragraph break. I think adding the break is not only better English, it makes reading the lead easier, while adding nothing to its length. As for Trump/Israel/Arabs, I know nothing and have no opinion. Bdushaw (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Ping for more talk on this suggestion. Bdushaw (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems further discussion is necessary about the separation of the domestic/foreign paragraphs into two paragraphs. They are naturally two separate discussions with a natural break "In foreign policy..." Joining them does not reduce the number of paragraphs, it just makes for two paragraphs badly written. Let's make it easier on the readers and avoid large blocks of text. Bdushaw (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I Oppose separating the two paragraphs. It has been like this for as long as I can remember. Seek consensus for this change. JLo-Watson (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

No it has not been this way, but the section has recently undergone several major changes. It is now natural to separate these two paragraphs. I did seek consensus for the change right here, as you can see, with no responses; hence few seem to find the change offensive. I believe you are in violation of the 2RR rule, however. Bdushaw (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

North Korea

Given the incredible size of the article, I trimmed the North Korea subsection (a subsection of foreign policy) of some extraneous detail, which are also found in other articles, in this edit. It was reverted and should be restored. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I support the trimming. I also don't think the last sentence of this sentence is necessary, as it doesn't tell us anything, and has no direct relationship with Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Trump met Kim, wanting denuclearisation. It didn’t happen. That’s the relevance of the last sentence. starship.paint (exalt) 08:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm undecided on the last sentence, which is why I left it in the article. It should probably say something linked to Trump though, rather than leaving it as an implication. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Japan Times Trump’s diplomatic endeavors did not result in an elimination of the North Korean nuclear arsenal — contrary to his initial assertions, Pyongyang has continued to develop its weapons program Source makes the connection. starship.paint (exalt) 09:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The source might make the connection, but we don't. Saying that the talks broke down is sufficient. Clearly if North Korea did scrap its nukes, we would say that.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually I think the trimming is fine (assuming that WP:V has been followed because I haven’t checked). starship.paint (exalt) 08:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The cuts removed longstanding consensus text that conveys the substance of the two leaders' engagement, including Trump's pleasure at Kim's love letters. The cut was not NPOV. Also, these cuts are not "trims" when they change the meaning of the narratives. SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
However long the text has been in the article is not an argument for its retention. I also checked to see if there was a consensus on this, and found there was none. "Love letters" does not convey substance and the proposed text very adequately summarises the warm relationship between Trump and Kim. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Please review our Policies and Guidelines regarding consensus and longstanding content. Yes, it is consensus text and you'll need to convince us all that WEIGHT, sourcing, or other factors have changed. Trump used the "love letter" bit, which was discussed here on talk, I believe. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
You clearly haven't read the guidelines you are talking about. Just because something may have been discussed, does not mean there is consensus for it. And no, nobody needs to "convince us all" about anything, ever. There plainly isn't any consensus text about North Korea for this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I think the trimming improves the article. Trump uses hyperbolic language, which if quoted verbatim can seem confusing. The wording implies that there was a sexual or romantic aspect to the relationship, which per WP:REDFLAG would require authoritative sources. TFD (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't convey a sexual relationship. It conveys the context and understanding Trump brought to this dire threat, identified by his predecessor as the top foreign policy challenge facing Trump. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think Trump's own self-description of their correspondence implies a "sexual or romantic aspect." It does, however, importantly show that Trump sought to use "personal diplomacy" with Kim in one of his signature policy initiatives, which as it turned out was fruitless. Neutralitytalk 00:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
"Love" can imply a romantic interest, which is an issue particularly for readers who are not familiar with the article subject. Per WP:ASTONISH, The average reader should not be shocked, surprised, or confused by what they read. Do not use provocative language. Instead, offer information gently. Use consistent vocabulary in parts that are technical and difficult. To work out which parts of the sentence are going to be difficult for the reader, try to put yourself in the position of a reader hitherto uninformed on the subject. Trump's own words cannot be taken as accurately assessing anything. If we want to say he sought to use personal diplomacy, let's just say that instead of implying it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with those comments about the letters. I also think that the previous text put too much emphasis on the letters. The summits received much more media attention and were considered to be the main front in Trump's diplomacy.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The remaining text 27 letters in which the two men described a warm personal friendship covers it well enough (it still shows personal diplomacy... ultimately fruitless). "Love letters" is just another Trump hyperbole. starship.paint (exalt) 15:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we have enough support to restore the trimming, but I don't want to do that myself this soon, so can someone else do so? The discussion can still continue. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

No you don't have support to change longstanding consensus text. Trump is a masterful communicator and he chose to say love letter to characterize the relationship. We follow verified RS. ASTONISH has nothing to do with censoring verified content. Don't misappropriate guidelines. SPECIFICO talk 10:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
It's only one person who is opposing the change, or two including Neutrality. By any definition, consensus favours the trimmed version over the previous version. It's not unanimous support, but that's not required. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Trimmed version is sufficient, no need to wax lyrical on "love letters". A "personal diplomacy" characterization is more neutral, let's resist playing into Trump's love for hyperbole. — JFG talk 15:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
    Personal diplomacy is Kissinger and Reagan. This is not described as such in RS. Let's describe a zebra. It's a white horse. Those stripes are just an insignificant detail. SPECIFICO talk 18:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
This is quite a baffling analogy, as zebras are most definitely not horses. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Bingo! Just as mainstream RS do not call Trump's Korean adventures diplomacy or foreign policy. His approach is described as reality TV or clowning and dereliction of duty in the face of a dangerous threat. SPECIFICO talk 20:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, you are confusing your own opinions with "mainstream RS". There are many sources which call Trump's activities diplomacy.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Ad hominems suggest you have no substantive rationale for expunging this key content. Are you familiar with RS coverage of this? With the statements of Mattis, Tillerson, Bolton, and countless other domain experts. For starters you can google Trump diplomacy and see what happens. SPECIFICO talk 20:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Okay we get it, you don't like Donald Trump. If you seriously think that is what the article should say, make a bold edit or propose it. Otherwise it's just more WP:POV WP:NOTHERE. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Do you really need to be reminded not to make personal remarks? Again? There is longstanding consensus text, so it falls on your shoulders or other body parts to justify removal. SPECIFICO talk 20:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with what I've said. The claims you are making, which you are not saying should be in the article, are not currently in the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support trim as an improvement over the previous. It could be improved further (the first thing that jumps out at me is that Time is a poor source for this, but there are others that could be used). I think I weakly support including the last sentence, at least for now. The point should be made, although I think a good objection is raised about the implied cause and effect. I think that's another area of future improvement. Levivich harass/hound 17:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support trim Using Trump's description "love letters" could be very confusing and misleading for those readers who don't know much about the two leaders' engagement. I also think characterizations like "personal diplomacy" or similar are much better here. The new version of the text after trimming is fine, it is shorter and clearer. Felix558 (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support trim with no major concerns with it. I also think that SPECIFICO, among others, needs to take a step back and remember that this article is too long, and is not a bulletin board of every potentially negative thing that can be possibly said about Trump - it is an encyclopedia article - not the place for people to vent about how bad they think he is. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Berchanhimez: Do I need to repeat to you? "Too long" must not be prioritized above NPOV and V. So the issue would be how to shorten. And also to repeat myself, the way to do that is to replace select news items with secondary and tertiary sources that summarize them to tell Trump's approach to the underlying issues and events. In the case of North Korea, the way to remove detail like the "love letters" bit - now that time has passed and perspective has widened - would be to cite sources such as the ones I linked above and others, that summarize his approach to diplomacy and to the threat of NK weapons. SPECIFICO talk 16:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
No adverse affects on neutrality or verifiability here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

An alternative trimming

I have made an alternative cut, which substantially reduces size but, I think, retains the meaningful information. What do others think? MelanieN, any views? Neutralitytalk 18:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I applaud the effort and will review this. What did I trim that you think should be kept? Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Combining the first two sentences is certainly good. I tried to do that but was reverted.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Question

Why does trimming the North Korean section attract so much attention as opposed to the rest of the "Foreign policy" section???--Jack Upland (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

North Korea (Kim) is featured in the lede as one whole sentence, so obviously editors consider it important. starship.paint (exalt) 15:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Sure, but why does the trimming of this section attract so much attention?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Because the section is judged important, the trimming is less favoured. Anything else you want to suggest? starship.paint (exalt) 09:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I think it's the complete opposite. People are targetting the North Korean section to be minimised, again and again and again. Why???--Jack Upland (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@Jack Upland: - I'm befuddled by your comment, as you yourself support trimming of the North Korean section. Perhaps people agree with your reasons. starship.paint (exalt) 02:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
My question makes perfectly logical sense. I support trimming in general, but the North Korean material seems to get the knife inordinately often.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Time to implement

It's clear that this has overwhelming consensus now. Could someone please implement? Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about???--Jack Upland (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I've added this subsection heading to distinguish it from the "Question" subsection. I am referring to the edit I brought to the talk page in this overall section, which is now clearly endorsed by a consensus of the talk page participants. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@Neutrality: has already implemented an acceptable compromise trim. I think this has been resolved. If you wish to insist on your own wording, you could launch an RfC, but I think this would be pointless. SPECIFICO talk 00:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous. There is near unanimous consensus for 123's proposed trim. We do not need an RFC. I will implement the trim later if no one beats me to it. Levivich harass/hound 00:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I see consensus also. starship.paint (exalt) 02:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I obviously disagree - the comments are clear that people like a trimmed version over what was previously in the article, but I see few or no people obviously expressing an opinion for 123's trimmed version over my trimmed version. Since my version was proposed after 123's version began to be discussed, a simple head-counting exercise is inapt. I am OK with an "A vs. B" RFC if others insist. Neutralitytalk 15:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I give up. You and Specifico are too difficult to work with. Your tag team ownership is too frustrating and your obstruction takes up too much of my time. Nobody can sincerely claim there isn't consensus in this thread for 123's trim and not yours. Meanwhile you've already implemented yours. How nice. Goodbye. Levivich harass/hound 16:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Not a single editor objected to my version, which accommodated everyone's desire for trimming while avoiding the controversial parts of the 123's edit. Had a single person objected, I would have happily reverted back to the status quo (pre-trimmed) version. I have consistently made consensus-based efforts to update, improve, and condense this article. It's truly unfortunate that you've chosen to focus on editors rather than content. Neutralitytalk 17:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Okay, then I object to your version. In reality, your proposal was simply ignored by the majority of people. There is clearly more support for the trimming that I did than what you did, so obviously what I did should be what is implemented, given that the vast majority of talk page participants here agreed with mine. It would be proper to start a discussion about your proposal after mine is implemented. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
More people objected to your proposal than to my proposal. (In fact, my proposal has been in the article for five days without any objection until yours just now.) In addition, while everyone agreed on trimming, there was certainly no consensus that your trimming was better than my trimming. And there was no consensus to exclude the key sentence: "North Korea continued to build up its arsenal of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles." Your version also randomly re-inserted a mention of Trump imposing additional sanctions against North Korea in 2017, while deleting references to Trump rescinding some sanctions against North Korea in 2019. Was this intentional? This disorganized process is not good. I am happy to work with you on a formal RFC with an "A vs. B" text that highlights the specific differences and narrows the range of text under dispute. Neutralitytalk 23:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
The only reason that nobody objected to your proposal is because nobody saw it. Likewise, nobody expressed support of your proposal either. This is compared with what I proposed, which many people have commented on, and the vast majority have expressed support explicitly for my proposal, and not only for the notion of trimming the subsection. Consensus does not require unanimity. Of course my edits were intentional. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Awilley: what can be done here? There is clearly an overwhelming consensus here and the attempts to hinder its implementation are getting disruptive. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: I read through the section above yesterday but didn't have time to reply then. I haven't looked at the relevant diffs, only the discussion here. My impression from that is that there's clearly a consensus to trim and specifically to remove the language about "love letters". I don't really see a consensus for a specific wording after the trim, and rather than hold a RfC with two competing wordings, I suggest the best path forward is to work from where the article currently is and make incremental improvements. Neutrality has expressed some objections to your trim (see "bottom line" sentence) and you clearly have some objections to Neutrality's trim. I suggest you get those objections out in the open. Once you understand N's objections and N understands yours, it will be easier to find a compromise. An easy way to start this is for you to edit the paragraph one sentence at a time, providing an edit summary explaining what problem you're fixing. Start with the uncontroversial stuff. Then if N objects to any edits, they can revert, and you can start discussing specifics. What not to do is simply revert to your preferred revision. That's just asking for an edit war. Good luck. ~Awilley (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention Awilley. I'm not referring to a dispute with Neutrality though, I am referring only to the version I proposed being implemented. Is it not clear that the consensus explicitly supports the trimming I proposed? I have followed the usual process by bringing the proposal to the talk page after it was reverted by one editor. Now that there is consensus for what I have proposed, when is the right time to implement it into the article? I would also like clarification on whether someone proposing something new can delay this procedure, even when the new proposal does not have consensus support. Could you also clarify when or how one or two editors can form a veto over consensus? If this is too broad, I am happy to take this to my user talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Let's review the bidding here:
  1. You started an informal discussion, and most others—including me—supported trimming over the previous version.
  2. During/after the discussion, given that there was a rough consensus that trimming was a good idea, I implemented a trimmed version. That was uncontroversial; nobody challenged it either by reversion or at the talk page. Everyone agrees that this is an improvement over the status quo ante.
  3. The focus of the conversation was about trimming, and the trimming was done. Nobody ever expressed support for the notion that your version could replace all intervening edits.
  4. The discussion above was not focused on the crucial "bottom line" last sentence ("North Korea continued to build up its arsenal of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles"). This sentence has been discussed before, and efforts to remove it were unsuccessful. And in the discussion above, by my rough count, of the three editors in the above discussion who mentioned this point, there was 2–1 in favor of retaining it. If you count me and you, it's 3–2 in favor of retention.
  5. Despite the above, you imposed your version (which numerous editors have, at least in part, objected to) over the stable version that had been trimmed five days ago (which I don't think any editor, except for you, has objected to).
  6. As part of your edit, you also randomly re-inserted a mention of Trump imposing additional sanctions against North Korea in 2017, while deleting references to Trump rescinding some sanctions against North Korea in 2019. This was not discussed at all above. You have not yet articulated any rationale for this.
  7. I've offered to collaborate with you on a organized RfC with a clear A vs. B choice, but you've not accepted that offer.
Neutralitytalk 05:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Not only did the clear majority of participants supporting trimming the previous version, they explicitly supported how I trimmed the subsection. This is not about the sentence "North Korea continued to build up...", this is about purely my edit that I linked to at the start of this talk page section. Whether or not others agree that your proposal is better than the previous version is a completely separate matter, and also completely unsupported given the very minor attention it has received. The "numerous editors" objecting are only yourself and Specifico, against the views of many more talk page participants.

I have no issue with any RfC on any alternative proposal you wish to raise, but that can only happen after the version supported by the vast majority of participants in this talk page section is implemented. Otherwise, it would very blatantly be an attempt to delay the implementation of this consensus, which has already been needlessly delayed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  • So you implemented the version you informally proposed — then you concurrently proceeded to make other, new edits that you did not earlier propose (or that were previously rejected), and that were promptly reverted (by SPECIFICO)? That rather creates, rather than resolves, confusion. Your comment also still doesn't explain your change to the sanctions language.
I propose to put the issue to a clear, formal RFC: with Option A being the current, trimmed status quo version (without the "love letters" quote, since that passage seems to raise concerns) and Option B being whatever specific text you would like to propose. A clear outcome will result (as opposed to a muddle in which different proposals and different edits were made at different times to different parts of the text), and we can all move on from the North Korea section. Neutralitytalk 19:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I see no reason to exclude the love letters. The only alternative, which would require a lot of work but may eventually be done, is to substitute more general tertiary-sourced material that captures the aspects of Trump's approach of which the "love letters" is an example and which conveys the substance of his approach. There's a reason the love letters remark has been so widely reported and discussed in secodnary and tertiary sources, and that establishes its DUE significance for this article. I'll just keep repeating every time it comes up, we should not force the narrative of Donald Trump into a cognitive template applicable to other presidents who were focused on policy and civic process. Trump's is not Jimmy Carter, Bush2, or other presidents whose policies failed. It's a different phenomonon and we need to be purely descriptive.
For additional love letter references, see Woodward/VOA, USA Today "As Kim wooed Trump with ‘love letters,’ he kept building his nuclear capability, intelligence shows" in WaPo video[2] Trump Administration NK movie trailer. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
To be clear, what I proposed at the very start of this section (which is what has overwhelming consensus) is what needs to be implemented now. I have since made other edits to the article, and if you want to revert those, that's fine. I'm not referring to all the edits I have made, only the single edit that this entire discussion was started with. Your and Specifico's disagreement is noted, but doesn't get to overturn or delay the consensus reached here. I have no issue with you wanting to start an RfC for your own proposal, after the consensus is implemented. No, there is no need to create an RfC comparing the new consensus version with yours before the former is implemented into the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@Levivich: There is near unanimous consensus for 123's proposed trim. We do not need an RFC. I will implement the trim later if no one beats me to it. I would be grateful if you could do so. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
No sorry I'm done spending any more of my time on this page. I applaud your efforts to improve it but for me, I'm just not volunteering any more time if it means having to fight with those two about every damn edit. They'd probably file at AE and accuse me of tag teaming anyway. Levivich harass/hound 21:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Consensus check

There is possibly some confusion on what the consensus here is actually a consensus for. The following editors have seemingly expressed support for not only trimming the subsection generally, but for the way that I trimmed it as well. @Jack Upland, Starship.paint, The Four Deuces, JFG, Levivich, Felix558, and Berchanhimez: Sorry if you have already made your views clear, but if you do support the version I proposed (when I started this talk page section) as an improvement on the pre-existing North Korea paragraphs, could you please say so here? I feel that we need clarity to bring the issue to some kind of conclusion. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

What's needed, if you want to continue this, is not more canvassing but rather a more structured process. As you were told many days ago, your best bet would be a formal poll or RfC after the group decides on 2-3 alternatives. In general, the best way to update longstanding NPOV text is not to cut a few words here and there, but rather to do what Neutrality and MelanieN have each done recently -- to write a new summary version that takes account of the underlying content issues. SPECIFICO talk 09:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Complete nonsense. Only you and the other editor opposing the consensus have expressed that view. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Did it ever occur to you that your colleagues here have devoted substantial thought and editing experience to their comments and that knee-jerk denial of others' work is very damaging to your own efforts? Dispute Resolution protocols are well-defined and at least more than half the time they are effective, if not speedy. To overturn longstanding consensus text, you'd need to demonstrate -- not merely assert -- new consensus. SPECIFICO talk
Your colleagues are clearly saying that my proposal should be implemented. To overturn longstanding consensus text, you'd need to demonstrate -- not merely assert -- new consensus. This has been extensively demonstrated in this talk page discussion. As far as I am aware, you do not hold any veto over the consensus process, and it is possible that a consensus may be found even if you don't personally agree with it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
There's only two editors opposing this edit. There is no need for a formal poll or RFC when the consensus is so obvious. The consensus version should be reinstated immediately. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: As far as I can see, the large majority of editors who participated in this discussion are supporting your trimmed version of the North Korea subsection, therefore I also think formal RFC and this "Consensus check" are not needed. I see a clear consensus to trim and implement your version. Felix558 (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I've restored the trim, per the clear consensus. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Well that didn't last long. Consensus ignored again. Space4Time3Continuum2x please respect the results of the discussion above. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Ernie, first off, it is not helpful to call a disputed cut by the misleading word, "trim". If it were merely a trim, there would not have been this talk page discussion. Perhaps you could read and react to the sources and reasoned arguments cited here in this thread. Or not, it's up to you. SPECIFICO talk 14:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The version you restored isn't 123ip's original trimmed version. That one did not delete the last sentence,i.e., North Korea continued to build up its arsenal of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. and that's the version several editors agreed to, if I'm not mistaken. At what point did the sentence go AWOL? My second edit deleted the "love letter" clause which several editors objected to, if I'm not mistaken. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I support Neutrality's proposed trim. I oppose this trim[3], which leaves out pertinent content, the absence of which would mislead readers today (and in the future) into thinking Trump's negotiations with North Korea produced results when it was immediately clear per RS and experts that they didn't (as shown by North Korea bolstering its nuclear weapons program). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, man!--Jack Upland (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I have requested this be closed by an uninvolved party. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Overturn consensus #40 on exercise.

He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise.

This has no encyclopedic value and shouldn't be included in the article. Something about his interest in golf can be included. If we want to discuss his exercise then it would be better to start over. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose removal. Support rephrase: version A (He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is akin to a battery, with a limited amount of energy which is depleted by exercise.) starship.paint (exalt)
    I oppose removal as I disagree that this has no encyclopaedic value. It helps us understand Trump the man better. It also explains his obesity. We used to have more on his lifestyle. That was removed by Onetwothreeip. Trump abstains from alcohol. He says he has never smoked tobacco or cannabis. He likes fast food. He has said he prefers three to four hours of sleep per night. Rephrase the second quote because it isn't Trump's exact words. starship.paint (exalt) 14:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
This is simply not true. Obesity is not caused by lack of exercise. If we have something properly sourced to explain the causes of his obesity, we may add that in the article. This is what I mean by potentially starting over rather than holding onto this wording. Your reasoning indicates that readers are making inferences that are not made by us, and we need to avoid that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Obesity is not caused by lack of exercise. - Excuse me?! The World Health Organization, the American CDC, the British National Health Service, and the Harvard School of Public Health would disagree. Trump's White House doctor said: "I think a reasonable goal over the next year or so would be [for Trump] to lose 10 to 15 pounds," Jackson said. "We talked about diet and exercise a lot. He is more enthusiastic about the diet part than the exercise part but we're going to do both." Clearly exercise is a factor affecting weight, as is diet, that's from Trump's own doctor. We are not stating that exercise is the only factor, but certainly it is something to keep in mind. starship.paint (exalt) 03:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
If you actually read those sources, you'll see it's more about an active lifestyle or occupation than exercise. Regardless, we would need sources stating his obesity is caused by lack of exercise, and not synthesising it from his weight alone. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
(1) You're talking as if there is no link between obesity and exercise, but there is (see Dr. Jackson above), and NHS confirms it. Harvard says that exercise is a subset of physical activity, which is linked to obesity. WHO measured physical activity via exercise programmes. CDC lists various forms of exercise as vigorous physical activities. (2) You are making this wholly about his weight, but this is also about his lifestyle. It didn't help that you deleted everything else about his lifestyle. starship.paint (exalt) 09:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think this provides good insight into his health beliefs and practices, and does so in his own words. It should be kept. I hadn't noticed that the material Starship quotes above had been removed and I think it should be restored. The widely-reported fact that he does not drink or smoke is an important health factor and should be included (although I could do without the "fast food" dig). I'm going to suggest restoring it, in a separate section after I dig up the necessary references. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Interesting side note: turns out Biden is also a lifelong teetotaler.[4] Maybe the one thing they have in common. Who knew? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
What insight into his health does it provide? It does not, it describes him doing one activity. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal — I do think we should include that he is a teetotaler, his sleeping habits, and his eccentric views on exercise. (Sleeping habits of Trump have been the subject of academic interest). I agree with cutting the stuff about fast food, cannabis, and tobacco. Neutralitytalk 17:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support removal of He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise. and oppose removal of He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. I see nothing wrong with mentioning his exercise habits, that's part of his health. However, the sentence about the body being a battery has no value. Firstly, it doesn't say anything about Trump's health, which is what this is about. Secondly, this comment was almost certainly a joke. I highly doubt Trump actually believes that. The only reason it's there now is to make Trump look stupid, which violates NPOV. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
    Comment Please review the talk page origins of Consensus 40. I do not recall any source or WP editor arguing that Trump's battery theory of exercise was a joke. Do you have any basis for your statement? SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
    Ok so when I googled this I expected to see some candid video of Trump on CNN saying "exercise is a waste of energy...blah blah", but I was wrong. Trump has never said such a statement before, this is just a hearsay comment that one of his old friends claimed he said. This sentence mislead me, and the thousands of readers of this article, that Trump said that, when this quote has never been confirmed. Wikipedia is not a place for speculation to be said as fact. He even tried to argue that he does exercise by walking around. While it's true that Trump is no triathlete, he really hasn't said much against exercising. The only negative thing he has said about exercising is he doesn't like his older friends working out to profusely because their knees could go out. This sentence is just pure unsubstantiated bullshit, that shouldn't be mentioned. Here are the articles: [5] [6] Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    This is not like baseball where you get 3 swings. First, you acknowledged his belief but said it was him joking. Then you say he never said it. But now, I'll refer you to the cited reference, which is RS. So what is the problem? SPECIFICO talk 02:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    He even tried to argue that he does exercise by walking around. - now that’s absolute bullshit from Trump. He also argued that he exercised by giving an hour long speech. Reliable sources have reported his battery theory, and that’s what we go with. It’s not speculation. We’re not obliged to stop him from making himself look idiotic. WP:NPOV doesn’t mean that. starship.paint (exalt) 02:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Starship.paint You believe Trump saying he walks for exercise is bullshit, thats fine, I believe this unsubstantiated quote that right now only serves to demean Trump is bullshit. Reliable sources haven't proved that Trump has said this. Therefore, it's pure speculation. SPECIFICO I still believe if Trump ever said this that it was likely a joke, but that's beyond the point because this very well may have never been said. As I just told Starship.paint, reliable sources haven't confirmed this quote. My problem is Wikipedia is including pure speculation, whether by reliable sources or not, as fact. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: - you have a point, that quote isn't Trump's words, that's WaPo's words. This would be solved by rephrasing the comment. We should not be giving the impression that this is a quote from Trump. starship.paint (exalt) 09:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: You can't really rephrase it because it's such a specific phrase. It's just not appropriate to be on this page. We have no reason to believe that Trump actually believes that. Even the sources haven't proved he say it. This theory remains unsubstantiated. If this is going to be included at any level, it should mention that this was never said by Trump, and is a fringe theory that The Washington Post made up in their heads. Remember sources are GENERALLY reliable under WP:RSP, I don't think we emphasize generally enough. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Iamreallygoodatcheckers, It's from this New Yorker article, where it is not sourced to "friends" but rather said as fact. The New Yorker is a WP:RS. Gershonmk (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: this is an interesting bit of trivia, but it is trivia nonetheless. There is no way of knowing (from the text in the article) if this was an off-the-cuff comment Trump made or a philosophy he has had from birth. Editors should adhere to Wikipedia policies or retreat to Facebook. Biography articles here are supposed to be in chronological order, not some online noticeboard compiled by woold-be Woodwards. This is a man's life we are talking about. Who is this man? How can you have a short section about his health which references information about his health when he's in his 70s? Is this the sum total of the man — that he was overweight when he was 70 or that he took up golf when he was 56? Get a grip, people!--Jack Upland (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. The article is too long as it is, and this piece of trivia is unimportant. I can understand how his exercise routine might be an important subject during his presidency, but now that he is just a private citizen it is of no import. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
He has a very sarcastic sense of humor or so he said. Yeah, let’s blame the media for misunderstanding his—uh—sense of humor, whether it’s too much testing increasing the number of covid cases or asking Dr. Birx whether there is a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it’d be interesting to check that. Trump wasn’t talking to the press when he admonished his employee that he would die young because (battery). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support how it made it in the article in the first place is truly beyond me. Anon0098 (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    If it is beyond you, please review the long talk archive of the discussion that arrived at the consensus language. Then, it will be in front of you. SPECIFICO talk 01:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support removal as having no encyclopedic value. PackMecEng (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support the two sentences discussed here aren't useful in this excessively-long article. There is no stand-alone Health of Donald Trump article, but it could probably go in Donald Trump and golf. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Those two trivial sentences discussed here should be removed, they have no encyclopedic value. Felix558 (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per starship.paint. I believe this is important to the article. It is fine to consider rephrasing these two sentences, but removing them makes the Health section less comprehensive. Davey2116 (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's the weirdest (and one of the littlest-known) beliefs that the President carries: his battery theory of life energy (CNN); #10 of Trump’s 10 most absurd claims Why it makes the list: Because it sounds like a theory people had 100 years ago, before modern medicine and science. (WaPo); a notion that puts Trump in the company of thinkers ranging from antiquity to the early 19th century (Snopes), plus a number of sources just quoting that remarkable opinion. The main arguments for removal are trivia, unencyclopedic, not useful, why was it included—no explanation why the editors consider the info to be trivial etc. It wasn't a joke told to a friend, as Checkers believes; Trump told an employee (O'Donnell) who was training for an Ironman that he would die young because the body was like a battery, with a finite amount of energy, which exercise only depleted (I'll look up the pages in O'Donnell and Kranish/Fisher later). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal Nothing has changed since the thorough discussion that arrived at consensus. Anyway it does him a disservice not to give his explanation for not exercising in the age of Peleton. SPECIFICO talk 15:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support removal or rephrasing - either remove it, or explain why this "trivia" about his belief in this theory is encyclopedic in the article - if a reader can't determine "why do I care", then it shouldn't be included. The mention of his "battery talk" is certainly trivial and does not merit mention in this article unless it has some very very good reason it is encyclopedic. Keep mention of exercise habits (ex: golf).
Who is "a reader" (and who are you)? This reader thinks that the theory of exercise depleting a body’s life energy ranks right up there with the flat earth theory, i.e., 15th century. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Given this discussion, I will alter the contentious parts of this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Onetwothreeip Wait a minute. Before you make any changes, tell us what you are planning to do. And you are too involved a discusser here to decide, on your own, that there is agreement to change the consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Doing a quick count: 8 people say remove both sentences (golf and battery). 6 people say keep both sentences. 2 people say keep golf but remove battery. This would suggest a weak consensus to keep the golf sentence (even 8-8 split) and remove the battery sentence (10-6 for removal). -- MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Nothing close to the kind of new consensus that we'd need to change the longstanding text. SPECIFICO talk 23:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I am not saying there is consensus against the text. What is clear is that there is no longer consensus for the text. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
That's not how this works. The longstanding consensus stands until a new consensus to replace is evident. SPECIFICO talk 12:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Trump current party is patriot not republican

Resolved. starship.paint (exalt) 02:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

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.

Donald J Trump was apart of the Republican Party until the end of his term. At which point he became a apart of the patriot party. I just want to make sure the Wikipedia is up to date and not having incorrect information. Sources https://www.baynews9.com/fl/tampa/news/2021/02/16/the-american-patriot-party-s-co-chair-says-he-s-in-it-for-the-long-haul https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/politics/amp/A-new-MAGA-Patriot-Party-launched-from-a-San-15900021.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbiters (talk • contribs) 19:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Trump just said at CPAC that he's not starting or joining a new party; https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-committed-to-republican-party-cpac-2021-2. Scoutguy138 (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@Tbiters: Welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be saying something not supported by reliable sources; in other words it looks like you're just repeating a rumor which is not true. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes , this was one of the first things he addressed as fake news, he stated he is remaining a Republican. MaximusEditor (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2021 (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.

Trump’s “false” claims of fraud

Resolved. starship.paint (exalt) 02:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

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

In the lead, the article says that Trump made false claims of fraud. I would like to know what makes those claims false? Many average citizens believe that there was fraud in the election while some believe there was no evidence of fraud in the election. Should it say that Trump made claims of fraud rather than Trump made false claims of fraud? Interstellarity (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

What makes them false is...the fact that they were untruthful statements? The facts that state after state after state found no evidence of election fraud would be the best place to start, along with court after court throwing out frivolous lawsuits. The vast majority of reliable sources have covered the false narrative of the former president's claims, so, the Wikipedia follows the sources. What "many" or "some" people (though you have the sides on that quite backwards) is irrelevant. ValarianB (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Interstellarity, saying he made "claims of fraud" without pointing out they were false would be adding bias by the omission of important facts. We shouldn't give the claims more weight than they deserve, per WP:FALSEBALANCE. That people believe the claims of fraud is an indictment on certain public figures, our media, and the lack of civics education in this country, rather than an important viewpoint we should give weight to. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you all for explanations. I understand now. Interstellarity (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2021 (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.

This article is far too long and a textbook example of recentism

I refer you all to WP:RECENTISM and WP:10YT

This article is just far too long and far too extensive.

LordParsifal (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I am all for actions, including boldly were necessary, to remove content that was added quickly after news events and without serious long term interest. If there are any article maintenance tags for recentism, that may be even more useful than a maintenance tag for the article simply being long. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The article at 430KB isn't nearly as too-long as it was at 490KB. It would be nice to get this under 350KB; but the cuts aren't nearly as obvious as they were in January. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    The way to reduce the size would be to write well-sourced summary text that can replace narration of instances of whatever the subject. We did this quite a while ago with the matter of Trump's false and misleading statements. At first we described each significant instance. Over time, RS presented summary narratives of his widespread mistruths. Thus we were able to include well-sourced summary content far briefer than the original listing of many false statements. SPECIFICO talk 18:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Health per Harold Bornstein

I removed some content about a letter that Donald Trump's doctor wrote publicly endorsing his health, here, but was reverted. This isn't reliable information about his health and isn't important biographical information about the article's subject. Potentially belongs somewhere else, but certainly not here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Support: The source of this claim is obviously biased and constitutes WP:UNDUE without balancing info. Also, the section should mention his COVID case. Gershonmk (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per Gershonmk. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose This statement was very widely reported - probably the one thing that everybody has heard about his health. And it provides an excellent example of Trump's flair for hyperbole. The COVID case has its own section but I suppose there could be a mention under "health" referring to the main section. It was the only major health event of his presidency. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
BTW what became of the paragraph about his checkups while president? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Good catch, MelanieN. That should go back, and now we have RS reporting that Trump's Covid illness was much more dire than reported. That could be part of a summary regarding incomplete, false, and misleading health information. SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I removed it 9 days ago (typo in edit summary). The last sentence had a typo (the cite is about a CT scan in 2018, not 2019) that had gone unnoticed for 19 months, indicating a lack of reader interest. Do the medical bulletins issued during Trump's former occupation (e.g., did not have an enlarged liver or spleen) really matter now—or ever, being kind of the normal condition of the human body? The only noteworthy health issue was the covid-19 infection which we mention. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Not a reason to include it in the section. The section is to describe his health, not embarrass him with his comments. There are other places for that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Embarrassment is not at issue here. SPECIFICO talk 07:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
MelanieN, IMO Trump's COVID-19 infection, including the experimental etc. treatment, definitely belongs in the "Health" section. We should consider rewriting Hospitalization with COVID_19, i.e., remove the details about the treatment, etc., and add a summary about the misinformation of the public. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't belong in the health section then. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Agreed.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: Doesn't tell us anything important in an already obese article.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. MelanieN explains the significance well. Neutralitytalk 01:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: As previously discussed, the "Health" section is a real problem. It purports to be about his health over eight decades but is really about his health immediately preceding and during his presidency. A real section about his health would be a chronological miscellany including information about his bone spurs etc. It makes more sense to deal with health issues as they arise. There is no point in mentioning COVID twice. There is no point in having this section.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Bemoaning Sessions's recusal

@Pipsally: Re [7]. The sentence leaves a reader who doesn't know why Sessions recused himself (it isn't mentioned anywhere in the article) wondering what it's all about. Also, bemoanings and beliefs - just seems too trivial for this top bio. I'm still considering removing the entire paragraph because the section is about the Mueller investigation; Trump's denials, intentions that came to nothing, beliefs, and bemoanings weren't part of it, just the usual Trump background noise to everything. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree this background noise doesn't belong here. Otherwise we would be going into detail about why Jeff Sessions recused from the investigations, and that's far too much for this article. While during the Trump presidency it seemed like the Mueller investigation would be critical, it clearly didn't come to that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Trump's behaviour strong this investigation is entirely pertinent. Just because he didn't shut down the investigation in the ends does not diminish the wider impact of his behaviour, and feed into a much broader pattern of behaviour.Pipsally (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Which broader pattern of behavior? The problem with the investigation was that it was hamstrung from the start (NY Times). Trump bitched and moaned whenever he thought they were exceeding the allowed scope, i.e., investigating him, his taxes, etc. He denied, he hissy fitted, and then his staff either talked him down or he forgot, whichever came first. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Here we are with "pattern of behaviour" again. If you want to include the pattern, that's fine, but there is no need to include individual pieces of that pattern unless those pieces themselves are due. We don't have an exception to WP:DUE stating that something can be included if it is related to something that is due. We have other articles for this level of detail. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Feel free to propose summary text for editorsx review and consideration. SPECIFICO talk 23:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Space4Time3Continuum2x that the paragraph should be removed from this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2021

talk about how many people hate him and why he shouldnt hsve been president any way Eehdbf (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done The controversy surrounding Trump is covered extensively. — Czello 20:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Good article

Answered. See previous discussion which Space4Time3Continuum2x raised. starship.paint (exalt) 02:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

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.

Why is this not a good article?

Because it's not a good article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
We discussed this three weeks ago. See here. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Because it has not successfully undergone a review to pass the criteria. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Because it is not unbiased; in fact, it is severely biased against Donald Trump, which should be changed. Hermit7 (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't necessarily think that it's not classified as a good article because it is 'biased' against Trump. There are so many editing disputes and constant updates that the people that review it can't reach consensus. Once all the hype around Trump dies It'll probably be classified as a good article.NSNW (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2021 (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 10 March 2021

I woul like to add a few things 194.223.61.176 (talk) 09:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead sentence proposal

EVERYTHING IS ~A~ OK!
Editors have achieved a consensus that choice A is the best option for the lead out of those presented at the top of the proposal. Editors have achieved a further consensus that the statement that Donald Trump "served as the 45th president of the United States" is appropriate for us in this article. There is no consensus regarding whether the term "politician" should also be included in a first sentence that has a structure akin to that of choice A—an idea some editors pitched during the middle of the discussion—though this may warrant future discussion if editors wish to explore this more in-depth. For now, however, editors have achieved a consensus to amend the article to use the lead sentence provided as choice A.(non-admin closure)— Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

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.

So are these four choices what we're down to at this point?


If so, what's everyone ranked preferences? Mine are C, D, A, B. (If not, what options would folks add? Or remove?) Levivich harass/hound 19:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC) Update: I'd support with or without "the" in front of "45th". Levivich harass/hound 19:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Options E and F added by {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Options G and H (the only difference between them is served as/was) added by Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Note to closer: This discussion is a continuation of the discussion at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 131#First paragraph on Inauguration Day, and there have been several other forks. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
But agree with comment below "...is an American businessman, media personality and politician who served as..." would be even better. Qexigator (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • F, as it more closely matches the style of the into sentence in similar articles such as Barack Obama. A, with 'the' in front of '45th' is the best choice among these 4. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • A - per above. throast (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • A first choice, B also OK, don't like C or D. Agree with adding "the". -- MelanieN (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC) Additional comment: I oppose E, F, G, and H. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment — This doesn't have all of the options discussed here. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 20:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
    No, it doesn't, because none of those options gained consensus. These options are built around incorporating the comments from that month+ of discussion. If you think there's another option that's more likely to gain consensus than these 4 (or, at this point, than A), please add it, and please let us know which option you think is best. Levivich harass/hound 20:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • He's not a media personality, businessman or real estate developer. He is a politician. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • B,A,D,C.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Note: I have added options E and F, which received substantial support in the prior discussions. I'm not too hopeful that this new survey is set up well enough to give us a definitive result, but I guess here we go. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
    To expand on why I'm not hopeful, this makes the same mistake we made at the earlier discussion of trying to introduce wholesale options rather than consider individual components. That works when you only have one or two questions, but it doesn't work when you have more than that. And we have substantially more than that: "was" vs. "served as", "businessman" vs. "real estate developer", "the 45th" vs. "45th", what and how to wikilink over his presidency, "is a [politician]/[businessman and media personality]", etc. Every time someone wants to introduce another question, the discussion will spiral further until we have the same situation as we had above. Each question needs to be considered on its own terms, not bunched into wholesale proposals. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree, but it doesn't look as though anyone is listening. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • E. Being president of the United States makes you a politician. Everything he did prior to that was notable, but not nearly as notable as his political activities, so those should be what primarily defines him. "Was" is more neutral than "served as", which is listed as an example of non-neutral euphemistic language at MOS:WTW. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
    Looking at how this is developing, I urge the closer to keep in mind WP:NOTVOTE. MOS:WTW is a guideline, whereas the best argument in favor of "served as", that it is used for many past presidents, amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFF (and it's not even a good otherstuff case, as per the this very comprehensive analysis, plenty of past presidents have used "was"). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • E - I agree with Sdkb that E is the most neutral. Also, the structure of the sentence places emphasis on his presidency, which no doubt will be his legacy, and most likely what people will visit the article to read about. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 22:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Still A for me; calling Trump a politician implies he's had at least a somewhat notable political career outside of his presidency, which is not the case. Jonmaxras (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
    • F then E. Fundamentally is a "politican" (as in a person who holds a political office) even though he is not considered the the typical politian (i.e. only serving as president with no prior government experience like representative/senator/governor) and that is what is most notable for now. I prefer "Served as" as because fundamentally he is still the 45th president just that that 45th is longer in office in any capacity (like notice how Obama and George W. Bush were introduced at the Inarguartion they introduced as the 44th and 43rd president), in addition to keeping consistency with every other president bio I see no reason to stop using it here. Moreover, "served as" is netural and no such notice (I can find) is on WP:WAF and if it was not is should not be on any other politian's bio. Regardless of whether he served president poorly/excellently he fundamentally still served in the office (also was makes it seems like he is deceased). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 23:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • A A politician by definition is someone who is in politics professionally. He only served as president for 4 years. If he seeks or holds a different office I would consider labeling him as a politician but a single office for a single term does not warrent the title imo. Plus, I don't see many RS labeling him as one. The first option is the most straightforward and neutral. Anon0098 (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
    Reliable sources don't call Trump a politician? What? It seems we've been through this before, so I'll just refer you to the list Scjessey easily compiled offhand; plenty more are available. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
If being President of the United States = being a 'politician', no need to add 'politician'. but Trump's only notable participation in political activity has been running for, holding, and leaving office as POTUS. Qexigator (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
He wasn't POTUS when he ran, and he isn't POTUS now. He was and is a politician, per RS (New Yorker, WaPo Someone running for office isn't a politician? An elected official isn't a politician? How does that work?) and per Trump himself when it suited him (same WaPo source). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • A, C, F all okay, my preferences go in that order. Anything that says "was" with "president" is unacceptable as he always will be the 45th president - and the use of "was" thus implies he died. This is pure english grammar/definitions - it is appalling that this requires a discussion and that some people refuse to accept "served as" as appropriate here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll be honest, I honestly don't care how he is labeled (business man/politician/etc.) However, A, C, and F should be the only ones we should consider since they all use the verbiage "who served as 45th President of the United States". The majority of US President articles use that wording, so we should be consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:446:400:7F10:2976:5E8C:8F7F:EC9F (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • H (first choice), G (second choice), in order of importance for Trump’s life trajectory. Television, i.e., The Apprentice made him a household name; media (press) helped him sell himself by treating him like entertainment for decades; media (social) - I don’t think I need to explain; businessman and real estate developer - see Trump Org. see below; politician - one term as president, ran at least one time prior to 2016. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Reversed order of preference. Khajidha pointed out that "served as" can be read as loaded negatively. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Real estate developer: It's a special subset of "businessman" and what he was doing from the early seventies to the early nineties, with spectacular success and failures. Businessman: President of Trump Org. which also had and has other business than real estate development (brandname licensing, golf courses, vineyard, hotel management). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose A, B, C, D. Second sentence of E and F: The second paragraph deals with that, so it's not needed here. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm confused by this entire process 8-). I oppose A, B, C, and D (and the second sentence of E and F, but I'm OK with the first one). My choices are G and H in the preceding bullet point. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
he divested himself of his business intrests No, he didn't. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Trump certainly did not divest from his business interests while in office. Neutralitytalk 22:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
@Space4Time3Continuum2x:@Neutrality:Trump removed control of his businesses to his sons, meaning he no longer meets the definition of "businessman" because he no longer (directly) controls any businesses(and by removing himself from direct control he has divested himself of his business, allbeit partially). Due to the fact this is contensious I softened my stance from "former-businessman" to just mentioning he was a businessman before his presidency Hazelforest (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Trump stated that he transferred "his business holdings to a trust run by the sons. He refused to sell his ownership stake, a step that many ethics lawyers say is critical to avoid conflicts of interest" [8]. He didn’t divest himself of his business interests like previous presidents did, i.e., sell or close his businesses or put them in a qualified blind trust to avoid conflicts of interest [9]. He still owns the business and is profiting from it, [10] whether he's involved in the day-to-day management or not. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Generally "Businessman" refers to managers, not just stakeholders, Trump has handed managment to his sons(which I also agree did not sufficently distance himself from them for COI purposes). I do not deny that Trump still holds stakes in businesses.Hazelforest (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Generally I agree but Trump never signaled any intention to step away from Trump Org for good. If you take a long sabbatical, do you stop being what you are? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@Hazelforest: I'm not sure what you mean. I guess your "Opppose" means you are opposed to all options, but "A is the best here" means you find A the least bad? — Chrisahn (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@Chrisahn: Yep that's exactly what I mean(although, I mistyped and added an extra "p" Hazelforest (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
"Served as" is pretty standard language for presidential bio articles. Not saying "served as" in the first sentence of this article when all the other presidential articles use that verbiage shows a clear bias. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • D or E per Neutrality. Mgasparin (talk) 10:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: The argument over "was" vs "served as" is one of the strangest things to argue over. An analysis here shows that "served as" is used for decent/good presidents and "was" for worse/less known presidents, which is interesting. With things as they are, I'm afraid it would be seen as biased to use "was" for Trump when the modern presidents all use "served as" except Nixon, who many people think was not a good president. I agree, a subtle POV push, or something which could be reasonably construed as such, in the opening sentence of the lead is unacceptable. As this semantic difference is otherwise meaningless, we should probably aim to be consistent with other recent presidents and use "served as". How good or bad Trump was as a president is irrelevant. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    I dare say this survey shows the "was" argument is dead. All of the options that use "served as" (ACFG) are favored over all the options that use "was" (BDEH) by a margin of 17-7 so far. Similarly, "businessman" is beating "real estate developer" by a wide margin. FYI right now it's polling at 11x A>F, 5x F>A, 2x A=F, and 6x neither A nor F. At some point when participation slows down I was thinking we might ping the "neithers" to see if they want to express a preference one of the two leading choices (A and F). Levivich harass/hound 16:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
How are you going to count the votes for "C > A > F" and "A, D, F, G," in that order, e.g., not to mention "Oppose A, C, F, G", e.g.? Wiki table with "support as first to fifth choice, opposed?" or just disregard all that and just count first choice, as your comment suggests? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Short answer: "C>A>F" counts for A, because C is not getting enough support to be a finalist. "A,D,F,G in that order" counts for A, first choice. "Oppose A, C, F, G" counts for neither A nor F (nor C nor G, but those aren't getting much support anyway), it's a "neither" vote.
Long answer: As of now, I count 27 responses, including 12 for A as first choice (e.g. "A,D,F,G in that order"), 4 for F as first choice, and 2 for A or F as equivalent first choice. The other options each received fewer than 4 first-choice votes. So out of 27 respondents, 18 think it should be either A or F as their first choice, while 9 think it should be something other than A or F, as their first choice.
Looking at those 9 who didn't pick A or F as first choice, 3 of the 9 picked A as a second or third choice (e.g., "C>A>F"), ahead of F, and 1 picked F (or the first sentence of it) ahead of A. So we can count those as 3 additional "A" votes and 1 additional "F" vote, bringing the "A" total up to 15, and the "F" total up to 5. That leaves 5 votes that opposed both A and F (e.g. "Oppose A, C, F, G"), or that didn't express a preference for one over the other; those are the "neither" votes.
Altogether, out of 27 votes: 15 for A>F, 5 for F>A, 2 for either, and 5 for neither. Levivich harass/hound 20:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Would be so much simpler and clearer to put up the six proposals (media personality, businessman, real-estate developer, television personality, politician, media and television personality) individually, ditto the two verb proposals (served as/was), and ask for a simple support/oppose on each one separately. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
It was obvious to me from the start that the majority of editors who insisted on "was" were driven by animosity towards the man who is the subject of this article. They don't like the connotation of "served" since they despise him (for example, see comment above by AleatoryPonderings). However, those editors forgot one of the main rules we have here: Content must be written from a neutral point of view. I agree that a bias would be obvious in this article if "was" stays in the first sentence, since we are using "served as" for practically all other former officials. Also, as Levivich said, we can not use "was" in the first sentence since he will always be the 45th president. Felix558 (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I oppose using "serving" for any political figure, not just Trump. I happen to think Trump didn't serve anyone but himself, but I also think that "serving as" is an inappropriate convention. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 221#"Serving as" in lede of politics articles. I also think it's silly to include ordinals like 45th as, IMO, they add no helpful context or meaning. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
They're both neutral expressions. "Be" is one of the synonyms for "serve as." If you go back far enough in the editing history for each president, you'll find different editors replacing "was" with "served as" and vice versa, based on personal preference. Teddy Roosevelt, one of the analysis's examples for "served as" is also an example for "was". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Agree with ProcrReader, Levivich, Felix558. Also, that analysis is flawed. For Richard Nixon, we have "was the 37th president of the United States, serving from 1969 until 1974", and from April 2019 to January 2020 we had the standard "was an American politician who served as". And even for James Buchanan, who is consistently ranked as one of the worst presidents, we say "served as". — Chrisahn (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Like the Highlander, there can only be one. Trump is a former president who was the 45th one. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • A, C, F in that order. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • A, C follow our guidelines and the precedent set in hundreds of other articles.--Moxy 🍁 17:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • A, C, F, G – but "...is an American businessman, media personality and politician who served as..." would be even better. Rationale: 1. Occupations should be sorted in order of chronology and duration in his life. 2. He has only been a politician for a few years, but that's what he will be most remembered for. 3. "real estate developer" and "television personality" are too specific, he's done lots of other stuff; "businessman" and "media personality" are better. 4. Definitely "served as" – it's the standard wording for former officials of all kinds. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - Problem I have with "was" as the lead currently reads is that he is and will always be the 45th president of the United States. Saying he "was the 45th president from 2017 to 2021" kind of misses the point then, which "served as" or "serving" would resolve. I'm genereally not opposed to "was" in leads of living people but in this context it feels inadequate. throast (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • A, C, G, F; in that order SRD625 (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • F, E, G, H, A, B, C, D. I'm partial to "served as". Thanoscar21talkcontributions 23:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • A or B "real estate developer" is WP:UNDUE and potentially misleading given how much of his business history has nothing to do with real estate development (he calls himself, and his allies call him, a builder or a real estate developer, but third-party sources are more likely to refer to the franchising of his name/image, scams like Trump University, etc.). Prioritizing "politician", as the article currently does, is similarly problematic, as he never worked in politics before becoming president and likely never will again, so out of a notable career spanning roughly fifty years he was only a politician for four; on top of that, arguably he was "better-known" as a Twitter personality than as a politician even while president, and there is no shortage of press referring to then-president Trump as a reality TV star. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • B, D, E, H - "served as" is overly florid language and borders on false, as it implies (at least in my dialect) that he was not the actual president but was only filling in. --Khajidha (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
If we aren't going to say "served as" in this article, then we're going to have to have a larger request for comment about removing that language from all presidential biography articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Fine with me. "Get it right here, then get it right elsewhere" makes much more sense than "well, its messed up everywhere else, so we might as well match". --Khajidha (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Rreagan007, is there an actual rule that says we have to follow the practice in other articles? Seems to me this was discussed a few times on this talk page and the answer was no. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Space4Time3Continuum2x, there is no such rule, and in fact WP:OTHERSTUFF advises against using precedent in that way. I also need to reiterate that it is not accurate to characterize "served as" as the general practice for other articles; per ONUnicorn's analysis, there is a bunch of each. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • E is succinct lead-appropriate language and NPOV. Strongly oppose "served as", for reasons widely noted at previous talk threads. It adds no meaning and some readers would understood it as implicit endorsement of his conduct in office. SPECIFICO talk 18:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC) I have added K J16:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC) that omits the disputed "is a politician" while keeping the important meaning of the opening. I endorse anything that is short and doesn't say "served..." SPECIFICO talk 02:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC) fixed typo16:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
By removing the "is a politician" you have removed the explicit indication that he is still alive. --Khajidha (talk) 12:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, where did you add K? I don't see it in the list of options. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
It's actually J. Though I'm not entirely sure why we skipped I. --Khajidha (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah, that explains it: typo :) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - Requesting that whatever the result of this discussion, it be retroactively applied -if not to all former US presidents & vice presidents bios - then to the more recent former prez & vice prez bios intros. It would be editorially sloppy, to make this 'one' bios different from the rest. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
    It's been noted several times here that we have no such principle. SPECIFICO talk 16:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
    While we can't use this discussion as a direct basis for making changes elsewhere (because, per WP:CONLEVEL, a talk page only has jurisdiction over its associated article), there'd be nothing wrong with building on this discussion once it's over with a wider discussion about the use of "served as". It shouldn't be limited to just U.S. presidents/VPs, as there are lots of other pages on Wikipedia that use the phrase and perhaps should not. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Every other US president and vice-president in recent history has been a career politician, and so can reasonably be described as "X is/was an American politician who served as the Yth president of the United States" or some slight variant thereof. The one possible exception I can think of was Reagan, who is hardly remembered as an actor today and (I think?) wasn't even that well-known as such before he entered politics. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
You're right, and I don't think Reagan is an exception (a politician for ~20 years, and two-term governor of California, before being elected president on his second try). See List of presidents of the United States by previous experience. Trump is the only US president to have neither served in public office nor the military before becoming president. That's why I don't support defining him as a politician in the opening sentence. Levivich harass/hound 02:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
You’re both wrong about Trump being the only president in recent history who wasn’t a career politician before becoming president. (How do you define "recent history?" I’d say that’s at least as far back as WW II, a period quite a few people alive today remember.) Dwight D. Eisenhower’s WP article calls him an American politician, and he didn’t run for or hold any political office, either elected or appointed, before running for president. Whether someone served in the military or not is just a statistic; it has no bearing on whether he is a politician. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
You've got "recent" mixed up with "modern". Eisenhower left office well over half a century ago -- that's not "recent". Moreover, even had the 1950s been within the scope of what I was thinking of, the distinction you make between "politics" and "military administration" is arbitrary and irrelevant to this article. It seems like you went back through the list of presidents to find the "most recent" contrary example you could give, without considering whether it would make sense to do so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not a mind reader and don't know what you were thinking of. Modern history is the period after the Middle Ages. You wrote "recent history" which usually refers to the last century or two, as in this example. "Recent presidents" depends on context and point of view, as in A ranking of 12 recent presidents from Dwight Eisenhower to Donald Trump ([11]). And where did I make a distinction ... between "politics" and "military administration" or even mention military administration, for that matter? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Modern history is the period after the Middle Ages. That depends on the context. In Japan, "early modern" (近世) refers to the period after 1600, and immediately follows, yes, the "middle ages" (中世), but indeed the word that most closely approximates "modern" in a Japanese historiographical context, 現代, refers to the period after 1945; but in secondary school in Ireland I'm pretty sure I was taught that "modern" meant either post-Enlightenment or post-Industrial Revolution, and while "early modern" in European history can refer to the Renaissance (i.e., "modern" can mean "after the Middle Ages"), this is something I definitely did not learn in school, and had to read specialist historical works after graduating university. Given that the US didn't exist during the European Middle Ages, it doesn't make sense to use that definition of "modern" when describing the history of the United States presidency, as George Washington would then be a "modern" president.
And where did I make a distinction ... between "politics" and "military administration" or even mention military administration, for that matter? You said that Eisenhower had not been a politician nor "run for or hold any political office" before running for president. Moreover, this isn't really the main issue -- Eisenhower is long dead, his life, pre-POTUS career, and presidential administration have been discussed in numerous historical books and articles, and we can use those to determine how to write that article, while Trump has only not been a former president for about a week and we are stuck either working his political career, such as it was, into the description that our article on him has used since c2004.
Anyway, why are we talking about this? Please stay on-topic.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Stay on topic? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment The options so far are missing the point. The issue is the combination of past tense with the number of president. Both "was 45th" and "served as 45th" are incorrect, since they use the past tense with the number. Jimmy Carter IS the 39th president. So those making the case that "was" implies Trump was dead are correct. I also am of the opinion that "served", irrespective of who, is a POV term - people "serve" in the military, whereas Presidents are pursuing their own political agenda (they are serving their own agenda if you will). I am not sure how to write it, but something like "Donald was president from XXXX to XXXX. He was a ..., before becoming the 45th president" would be formally correct. He was not "the 45th president from XXXX to XXXX", because he still is the 45th president (impeachment prior to ending his term is another story...). In short I suggest a different structure entirely, and avoid "served as", irrespective that Carter and Clinton articles use that phrasing. A curious conundrum, to be sure. Bdushaw (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

There won't be another 45th president—so I can keep my "45 es un títere t-shirt—but he's not president now, and present tense is incorrect. It's an unofficial numbering system which counts Grover Cleveland twice because his terms were nonconsecutive. Another numbering system (number of men who were president) lists Trump as 44. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The example you name explicitly says he served as the 39th president of the United States. "Barack Obama was the 44th president" gets thousands of hits on Google News, while "Barack Obama is the 44th president" gets only six that don't date to the time when he was actually the sitting president; the latter is ungrammatical unless, say, we are talking about numbered placement in a specific visible list. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
It then boils down to whether the numbering scheme is per popular culture or formal correctness. I had in mind the Bush presidents noted as 41 and 43 in present, e.g., if you were talking of President Bush, you had to note whether you were talking of 41 or 43. If it is as noted that the numbering scheme is neither pop culture nor formal, then past tense is certainly appropriate, "was" or "served as". "Served as" seems universally used...perhaps time to throw in the towel and go with what everyone else is using? Sometimes it is difficult to fight word usage that is universal (however wrong). Bdushaw (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
In the case of the Bushes, it is neither pop culture nor formal correctness, it is simply a convenient means of disambiguation. --Khajidha (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Right, and that's fine because he's not serving anymore, but is still the 45th US President. Ewulp (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment (J or A), The current lede is worded in a way where it seems that he is not a businessman anymore, even though he is still a businessman with his business conglomerate named "The Trump Organization". Referring to the "was" part. I think the choices from A - I before I added J are lacking a substantial information. HE IS STILL A POLITICIAN AND BUSINESSMAN. I would say match it with George W. Bush's lede with a slight change to "served as the __th president of the United States". Adding to that, the phrase "was the 45th president of the United States" is kind of misleading since he is permanently the 45th president of the United States even if he passes away. PyroFloe (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
    he is permanently the 45th president of the United States This statement is ungrammatical. Describing a former president (whether they are alive or dead is irrelevant) as "is the Xth president" is wrong, unless we are talking about their placement on a specific, visible list, which the opening sentence of this biographical article definitely is not. No other article on a US president, living or dead, seems to disagree with this assessment. What's more, there does not seem to have been any confusion over this matter four years ago when Obama left office. Why are multiple editors making it an issue this time? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
    Okay, I'll bite, how about this: he will always be the 45th president of the United States, and as such, saying "was" implies that he is no longer living? You're right - every other article on a living former president uses "served as" - why can't this one? Also made a minor edit to your indent per MOS:LISTGAP Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
    "Served as" strikes me as either 1) overly florid ("Oh, it's no bother! I'm proud to serve.") or 2) implying that he wasn't really the president (only serving as such until a real president could be selected). Rather than change this article to match this poor usage, it would be better to change the others to use "was". And saying that he was the 45th president no more implies that he is dead than saying that I was a cashier at a grocery store implies that I am dead. --Khajidha (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Again, that's not how the English language works. Virtually every single news source that describes Obama as "is the 44th president" dates to the period when he was currently the president; those few that don't are generally either poorly written or are saying things like "There he is, the 44th president".[12] It's theoretically possible to interpret "was the 44th president" as meaning that he has been retroactively expunged from the list of presidents and is no longer officially considered to have been the 44th (as happened in Japan with the Northern Court emperors, i.e., "Obama was the 44th president then, but now Trump is the 44th president and Biden the 45th"), but I highly doubt that that is what, say, The Washington Post, The Independent and ABC News mean. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment for User:Khajidha: You are forgetting we are talking here only about Wikipedia, not about everyday conversations. Wikipedia has a long-standing practice of using "IS" for living people in the first sentence of the lead, and "WAS" for deceased people. For example, see Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, François Mitterrand, Emmanuel Macron, Thomas Jefferson, Jim Clyburn, etc. - there is an endless number of examples. Using "served as" is a great way to avoid using "was" for former public officials who are still alive. Felix558 (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
1) How things are done in other article is not binding on this article, 2) especially if things are done badly in other articles, 3) you will notice that, for example, things in Gates's life that have ended are described using "was". Gates WAS a National Merit Scholar. Just as Trump WAS president. Neither of those men are those things anymore.--Khajidha (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
What Wikipedia has a long-standing practice of is using "is" immediately after the name of the subject if the subject is a living person, hence Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality (which is standard English usage, not unique to Wikipedia at all); subsequent subordinate/relative clauses use the verb tense that makes the most grammatical sense. Saying he "is" the 44th president is equivalent to rewriting the opening paragraph of the article body to say At age 13, he is enrolled in the New York Military Academy or even editing further down the article to say While Trump is credited as co-author, the entire book was ghostwritten by Tony Schwartz. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • A, but I would prefer to !vote on the individual parts:
Against "was the 45th". He "served as" the 45th president (he still is the 45th president). This is consistent with what whitehouse.gov says about Obama.[13]
Against "politician". "President of the United States" already tells us he is a politician, and he has not otherwise been a politician.
"Television personality" and "real estate developer" are too specific and do not adequately summarize.
"He was a businessman" is not supported because he still is a businessman.
I am unsure whether to place "media personality and businessman" before or after "president". I am also unsure whether he is still a media personality. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Whitehouse.gov is largely a primary source, so I would fully expect them to use the more formal/honorific "served as", rather than the neutral and plain "was". We're an encyclopedia, so our considerations are different. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Sdkb, Britannica writes "Donald Trump served as the 45th president of the United States (2017–21)." [14] Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • A, B, C, D, G, H - all fine options. The sentence "Before entering politics..." has always been awkward, with it being more unnecessary than ever, now that his presidency is over. I find it to be perfectly reasonable to list off his three ventures in a truncated form, without the confusing sentence that makes it sound like his business days are behind him. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 20:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Darned Annoying

In these last few days, other former US presidents bios, have just had their intros changed from "served as.." to "was". GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Which ones? I was reading about a few antebellum presidents last week and noticed weird wording in the lead sentences, suspected foul play, but didn't look into it; seeing your comment here, I checked every 20th/21st-century POTUS and all but five (McKinley, Taft, Harding, Truman and Nixon) still have some variation on X is/was an American Y who served as the Zth president of the United States, while McKinley, Taft, Harding, Truman and Nixon all had their current (admittedly awkward) wording before last November.[15][16][17][18][19] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Other articles are not about Trump. There is no policy that even would suggest "served as". More problematic is the editors who keep changing "was" to "served as" when the issue is clearly unresolved and unlikely to be resolved. SPECIFICO talk 19:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Combining options A & F

These are my thoughts preceding my official !vote above. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

(And lead of User:Kolya Butternut/Public image of Donald Trump)

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Before entering politics, he was a media personality famous for his image as a real estate tycoon.

  • A: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.
  • F: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality.

"F" doesn't work because he is still a businessman. "A" deemphasizes his presidency. A + F states that he is still a businessman, used to be a media personality, and includes what he was famous for before being president. His fame and brand are essential to his biography. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

On second thought, if we're not describing anything about his presidency in the first sentence I don't think we should mention his real estate tycoon image. Best to simply combine A & F: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Before entering politics he was a media personality. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for Closure

Listed at WP:ANRFC on February 10, 2021. [20] Mgasparin (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Rank choice !vote tallies

I've put together an excel sheet tallying !votes using a ranked choice voting method. I've decided it would be best for me to not close the discussion, but I would be happy to share my work by email. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, could you turn on link sharing and post the link here? It might be useful to the closing admin. Thanoscar21talk, contribs 00:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanoscar21, I'd rather share by email, thank you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_134&oldid=1011968774"