Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 138

Archive 135

Archive 136

Archive 137

Archive 138

Archive 139

Archive 140

→

Archive 145

Violently stormed

So there has been some back and forth about the link in the lead to the 2021 United States Capitol attack with it going back and forth between "hundreds stormed" and "hundreds violently stormed". The long standing is without the stormed violently. Brain fart. PackMecEng (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

It looks like it was first added by Thomascampbell123 June 30th[1], then reverted by Rusf10 the same day[2], then that was reverted by SPECIFICO the same day again[3], followed by a partial revert by Spy-cicle on July 2nd[4]. Later it was added again by The One I Left July 9th[5], which Spy-cicle reverted on the 14th[6], next SPECIFICO quickly reverted the same day[7], and finally I went back to status quo today[8].

So what do we want to do? PackMecEng (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

To be frank, I dont like "stormed". Let's say violently breached security. SPECIFICO talk 02:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

As referenced in 2021 United States Capitol attack, Shortly after 1 p.m. ET Wednesday hundreds of pro-Trump protesters pushed through barriers set up along the perimeter of the Capitol, where they tussled with officers in full riot gear, some calling the officers "traitors" for doing their jobs.[9] The bodycam videos[10]] tell the story; pay particular attention to the audio. soibangla (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Tussle with sounds like they messed up their hair. Better: "attacked". SPECIFICO talk 03:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I second an objection to "stormed," now that it is mentioned. It does not convey the horror of what happened to a modern reader. "violently overran security"? "Violently" seems to describe what happened best. "battled the Capitol police before entered the Capitol"? "tussled" is ridiculous. Bdushaw (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

"Stormed" is what they did. "Violently stormed" is a tautology.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Jack and Spy-cicle Please consult a dictionary regarding the meaning of "tautology". SPECIFICO talk 00:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, "violently stormed" is redundant. "stormed" is the wrong word, however. Bdushaw (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Rioted and stormed.Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Better, but we need to convey that they personally attacked police and broke through doors and windows and barricafes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 11:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

No, we don't. That kind of detail is conveyed in the article text. We are talking about the lead section here - where we summarize in a few words what is spelled out in more detail in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that the brilliant group of editors here can accomplish both brevity and the full meaning I suggested. I don't think "stormed" is a common usage that most readers would understand. Before editing articles about Jan 6, I can't recall when I previously saw "stormed". Maybe 10th grade history class RE: the Bastille. SPECIFICO talk 00:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Stormed is the normal word for taking over a building in the way they did.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The reason I reverted is because as Jack Upland points out "violently stormed" is tautology equivalent to "armed gunman". It may be worth waiting to find a result of the move review for 2021 United States Capitol attack. I think "attack" by itself is too imprecise (you can attack a building without actually getting in, i.e. using projectiles). Perhaps "attacked and stormed"? Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I think plain "stormed" - without "violently", without "attacked" - is appropriate. It defines exactly what they did with a minimum of verbiage. Particularly important in the lead section. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

BTW PackMecEng, you said The long standing is without the stormed. What you meant to say was "The long standing is without the violently". It used to just say "stormed". -- MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

MelanieN, You are absolutely correct. Stormed was the long standing, I meant to write without violently. I will strike and fix. PackMecEng (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I would just like to add I think without adding the “violently” you don’t get a proper sense of what took place. It was a violent attack, and stormed doesn’t have that sense of danger to it necessarily. I don’t see any harm in adding “violently” as it accurately describes the event.The One I Left (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

You don't feel that "stormed" conveys a sense of danger? Odd.--Khajidha (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

When I think of stormed, I think breached. People can break through a crowd but that doesn't really convey the danger and the violence we saw on January 6.The One I Left (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree. The champ stormed through his Wheaties and strode confidently out to the first tee. SPECIFICO talk 00:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

When I insulted the lady, she stormed out of the bar. I think technically "stormed" refers to a violent taking of something, but as a practical matter today, it, to me, lacks the appropriate sense to convey the violence of having a fire extinguisher thrown at the Capitol police. Bdushaw (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Those examples are using a different definition of stormed. They don't have a target and often convey a movement away ("stormed out of the bar"). This usage of "stormed" always has a target and implies a violent incursion ("storming the Bastille"). I am legitimately surprised that anyone would confuse the two. --Khajidha (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

It is my sense that most Americans would not immediately perceive the violence inherent in "storm", as you mean it. The word is too quaint and not that common. I am in favor of something more descriptive such as "after a violent melee with the Capitol police, the mob broke into the Capitol". Bdushaw (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

You don't think Americans know about "storming the beaches of Normandy"? That and the Bastille are the preeminent uses of "stormed"/"storming" and are definitely cases of extreme violence. --Khajidha (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

("melee" may not be that common either...) Really the incident consisted of two phases - the violence of the attack on the Capitol police, followed by the break into the Capitol. To use "storm" could also mean that mild force was used to enter the Capitol, but not much else happened...like a group of tourists who ignore the advice of the local security and cross a barrier. It was incredibly violent, and I'd be in favor of mentioning the Capitol police as the Capitol defenders. Bdushaw (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Definition #1 of "stormed" as a transitive verb: "to use force to enter a place and take control of it." e.g. "The police stormed the building and arrested 12 men." "The city was stormed by rebel forces."[11]

Definition #2 of "stormed" as a verb: "storm (of troops): suddenly attack and capture (a building or other place) by means of force." e.g. "commandos stormed a hijacked plane early today"[12]

Definition #6 of "stormed" as a noun: "a violent assault on a defended position"[13]

Storm (verb): "to suddenly attack a place". [14] -- MelanieN (talk) 03:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I dont think anyone questions the definition. It's that this word is not commonly used and is obscure to many or most readers. SPECIFICO talk 03:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

1/6 was an uncommon event. The term "to storm" is a metaphor. Every reader knows that a storm is a violent disturbance of the atmosphere with wind and rain, fire and lightening. So they know what it means to storm a building even if they had not heard the term before. TFD (talk) 04:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

There was nothing resembling wind, water or fire damage, though. You could argue it was "shocking". But the real electrical power didn't get knocked out, so it seems like a stretch, even poetically. More a "crashing", partywise or "smash and grab", crimewise. But they're not contenders. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

"Violently stormed" is redundant - you can't storm something non-violently. (Another editor referred to this a tautology. Instead of quibbling about semantics, editors should accept this is what they meant.) Another editor mentioned "the horror" of the attack. Well it's not up there with the storming of the presidential palace in Haiti, the events of 9/11, the assassination of JFK, the attack on Pearl Harbor or the storming of Versailles. We don't have to tell readers what to think, just explain what happened. TFD (talk) 04:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

yep. Explain it in words they'll all understand. So don't get rid of violently. Get rid of stormed. SPECIFICO talk 12:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

TFD, in your own words, what do you find RS describe as having happened? SPECIFICO talk 13:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

you can't storm something non-violently. Have you ever seen a Black Friday stampede for a discounted waffle-iron? Certainly could stay they are "storming" the store, but, not with the intent to commit violence. ValarianB (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

That may not have been their intent but the outcome was that a Walmart employee was trampled to death: shoppers stormed a Wal-Mart. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I vaguely recall having removed the addition of "violently" a couple of times as redundant. Looks like the discussion that moved "2021 storming of the United States Capitol" to 2021 United States Capitol attack has now moved here with similar arguments. The transitive verb to storm requires a direct object (beaches of Normandy (i.e., good), U.S. embassy in Teheran (bad), Bastille (good)), the intransitive verb does not (stormed out of the meeting, stormed into the store), but both indicate violence, whether it is directed at a direct object or not. There is no other verb, IMO, that expresses the events better. The mob violently physically attacked, breached and entered. "Attack" could mean a verbal altercation. The "uncommon" argument: well, how often has the storming of s.th. happened in the U.S. since Union troops stormed Lookout Mountain in 1863? Some editors argued that you can't use the verb because the far-right likes and uses it, while others argued that the verb romanticizes what happened. Sometimes a verb is just a verb, and this one is short and to-the-point. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I won't argue against "stormed", but do note that celebrities can storm the stage, and fans can storm the field without necessarily hurting anyone or even damaging property, just by moving fast to where they're not supposed to be. Thus I understand the addition of "violently" and don't think it's a clear tautology. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

If there is any doubt, it does link to the main article 2021 United States Capitol attack and that should alleviate any concern. PackMecEng (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

That lead has, curiously, stormed during a riot and violent attack... if "stormed" is so clear...why the extra phrasing... Bdushaw (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just wanted to acknowledge modern-everyday parlance where the transitive verb 'to storm [something]' need not include physical violence. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

And I just want you to know that rushing a stage, field or other open space sounds more natural, with or without bloodshed. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

As a non-native speaker, I thank you for that insight! The article on pitch invasion certainly doesn't reflect this preference. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia suggests a lot of things are more normal than they are. To be fair, though, "storming the field" isn't a complete fabrication. Just a phrase less employed. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Turns out an editor or two had courts confused with fields, fixed now, point to you for the assist. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• Just "stormed," without "violently," is the way to go. It's a dictionary word. It's not marked archaic or obsolete. Arguments that Americans (or anyone) won't know that "storming" a building involves violence are unconvincing to me because these arguments are unevidenced and contradicted by the dictionaries, by searching GNews, GBooks or GScholar for "stormed the," and by the fact that like almost every single English-speaking news outlet in America and the world used the word "stormed" to describe the attack. They wouldn't have used the word if it was unfamiliar or confusing or inaccurate. Follow the sources as always. (Not our own assumptions/beliefs about what other people do or do not know.) Levivich 13:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Stormed is used overwhelming often by the sources. Almost all of these sources also describe the violence in the storming, so it makes perfect sense to say violently stormed. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 20:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• By the way, I have been informed previously that there is no Wikipedia policy which says we should use the same words as the sources. Can someone please correct me if this isn't true, because this line of argument comes up a lot? Thanks.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  Jack Upland, yes you're technically right. I would say this is essentially the policy on it: Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing#How_to_write_acceptable_content. ––FormalDude^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 01:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  Is there any other kind of right? By the way, I believe that "stormed" is the mot juste. The storming of the Capitol in Washuington DC will rank with the storming of the Bastille, the Gordon Riots, and the Battle of Brisbane... or I'm a Dutchman.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• The issue is this: Do you believe that all of our readers will understand "storm" to mean violently attack and breach, or does the use of that $6 word risk misunderstanding by up to half our readers? I am confident half of our readers cannot tell you anything about the Gordon Rots or Brisbane, and a non-neglible if smaller number have never heard of your Bastille thing. SPECIFICO talk 20:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  Precisely. That's why I support violently stormed. ––FormalDude^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 21:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

FormalDude, above you said that "Stormed is used overwhelming often by the sources." And that the sources also describe the violence. Did you see any sources - any at all - that said "violently stormed"? Because I don't think that phrase is at all a common usage. I think it is something that we would be making up. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

MelanieN: Because the sources describe the event as a storming and also as violent, I do not think it is anything close to WP:OR or WP:SYNTH to say "violently stormed". As mentioned above, there is no Wikipedia policy which says we should use the exact same words as the sources. Striked: not my place to preach policy to an admin. "Violently stormed" is an accurate summary of how the sources describe it, even if it may not be verbatim. And equally important it is an accurate summary of how the text in the article describes it, which the lede obviously should be representative of. ––FormalDude^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 21:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

MelanieN: I am familiar with whataboutism, and I do not think pointing out a perceived contradiction in your opinion is in any way whataboutism. If you clearly agree RS show that the protest was violent (which I infer from your other comment agreeing that Trump partly incited the violence) then it doesn't make sense for you to support wording that doesn't make clear that the event was violent.

I think your stance is that the word "stormed" implies violence and is therefore sufficient–is that right? If so I'd just encourage you to look at the worldview of the word stormed and some of it's multiple definitions, because that is what lead me to the conclusion that stormed is not inherently violent. My stance is because of that, we should clarify it with the qualifier "violently". ––FormalDude^(talk) 23:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Having simmered about this for a while now, I am in favor of a two-part text like: attacked the police and stormed the Capitol. The event did occur in these two phases, with the initial attack being at the police barricades. I have a great deal of sympathy for the Capitol police (c.f. hearings yesterday) and feel their role should be acknowledged. I understand "stormed" but it is too neat and antiseptic to describe the violence that occurred.Bdushaw (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Since we're talking about the lede summary, I think a statement like "... which hundreds stormed in frenzied rage." would adequately described the horrid event without the redundancy associated with using "violently stormed". The section, however, begs for some seriously artful prose lest a whitewashing of the event is the desired end.--John Cline (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Not a subscriber to the "normal tourist visit" rewrite of history, I see. Frenzied rage is an apt description for the mob's actions during the battle on the west terrace but that was the one place where the mob didn't gain entrance to the building. I don't see this battle mentioned in the main article, although they do have an image of Officer Hodges being attacked in the doorway. I think that article would be the appropriate place rather than this one which is more about Trump's involvement. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Aside the warm welcome, your rebuttal is well informed and otherwise: well received.--John Cline (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 August 2021

change "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." to "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021." to make it consistent with entries for other US presidents. 2604:2D80:A282:1300:3450:CE67:FA2:EBB9 (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Please read all this talk page discussion about this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

New move request started at 2021 storming of the United States Capitol

The previous page move was overturned after the move review. If you want to participate in the new move request, go to Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol#Requested_move_2_August_2021. (Probably not the right way for a move notification.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Website

www.donaldjtrump.com (a.k.a. save america) should be listed among the official websites. He has been and is currently using it to issue his "official statements". At this time, he seems to be using it more then his "office" website. Currently, the last statement on his "office" website was posted on July 30th (see here), while the last statement he posted on his "donaldjtrump" site was August 2nd (see here). I had tried to add it to the list but my edit was reverted by another editor because it's slready in the "external links" section. It would seem more appropriate to include it with the websites in the infobox and I would like to see if we can get a consensus on this--Steamboat2020 (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

ping: User:Space4Time3Continuum2x--Steamboat2020 (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Trump changed the location of his blog/statement/news site at least once before. Despite its URL, donaldjtrump.com isn't Trump's website, it's the PAC's. I checked the infoboxes of various other former presidents and current politicians and have yet to find a single one that lists their PAC(s), not even in the "external links" section. 45office.com appears to be his official post-presidential website. There have been three previous discussions of this matter recently, April–May, May, June. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x#1.) You are correct that Trump has changed the location of his blog/statement/news site at least once before which is why the previous discussions may not reflect the current reality. #2.) You can't compare Trump to other former presidents. He is the first former president since the web was invented who is "unofficialy" (due to campain finance laws) running again for president. #3.) He can't set up his official campaign site as long as he doesnt officialy declare his candidacy so he has to set that site up as a PAC website but the reality is that he is using it as his official campain website. I have never seen a PAC website being used in this manner. The reality is that this website is "currently" functioning as his primary campain website and in my opinion the wikipedia article should reflect that reality--Steamboat2020 (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The fact that it is his official campaign (with a g) website is all the more reason not to use it. The Wikipedia is not an advertising platform for political candidacies. Zaathras (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Official campaign is not an uncommon WP:ELOFFICIAL for a politician. WP:OTHER sure, but see Joe Biden. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

We actually do have the direct link to Trump's blog on the PAC website (bypassing the shop:). The website is paid for by the Joint Fundraising Committee of two PACs, the Make America Great Again PAC (a "single-candidate super PAC in support of Donald Trump" which must do any political spending independently of the campaign) and the Save America PAC (a "Leadership PAC affiliated with President Donald J Trump" which may fund travel, administrative expenses, consultants, polling, and other non-campaign expenses). Neither one is a campaign website because—as you said—there is no campaign. How does linking to the website of the Joint Fundraising Committee reflect that he appears to be hinting at possibly contemplating running again in 2024? As far as I can tell, he's just continuing the grift, at one or two steps removed but very lucratively. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Categories

Category:Cultural depictions of Donald Trump is a sub-category of Category:Donald Trump in popular culture. Shouldn't it logically be the other way around? And would it be a good idea to merge the categories? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Should not be the other way around, "depictions" should only include the parodies, cartoons, mentions, etc. created by other people, not appearances or content created by the man himself. Although, if depictions is a tiny category, I would understand merging it with the larger (more general) "Trump in popular culture" category. - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Punctuation

There are some inconsistencies in the article regarding punctuation around quotes. Made up examples:

1. Trump was a "president", said .... (incorrect punctuation) 2. Trump was a "president," said .... (correct punctuation)

Likewise with periods instead of commas. Could someone with the power of editing the article fix this?

The first one is correct per MOS:LQ. Where is there an inconsistency? ― Tartan357 ^Talk 06:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Personal image: hair

I see that the subject of his hair has been discussed many times, but I haven't found a good argument for why there is no mention of Trump's hair, something he is most famous for. I suggest we add a "Personal image" subsection under Public profile. We could add a line something like: In 2004, the Chicago Tribune wrote that Trump is known for his "unusual mane of copper hair", or something else from Public image of Donald Trump#Hair Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Leave it out. There is already plenty about the subject at the public image article, to which Donald Trump's hair redirects, so the material is easy to find if people want it. We rarely comment on people's personal appearance in their biography. In fact judging people by their appearance, or making a big deal about it, is something I thought we left behind in the last century. We don't have anything in the 'pedia about Barack Obama's ears, although there is plenty of commentary about it online, or about Hillary Clinton's hairstyles which also have a lot of information if you Google it. For that matter, if we mention the "mane of copper hair" we would have to deal with the claims that he is bald under a combover, or the observation that his hair is orange one day, white the next. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

There is already plenty about the subject at the public image article...last century. These aren't policy reasons?

We don't have anything in the 'pedia about Barack Obama's ears...a lot of information if you Google it. The DUEness is incomparable.[15]

[I]f we mention the "mane of copper hair" we would have to deal with the claims that he is bald under a combover.... That might be undue, but if due, so what?

The fact is, Donald Trump's image IS his hair. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The hair doesn’t define him, it’s a distraction and a way to stay in the news. (Also, this is a mane. If Trump had one, he wouldn’t need that elaborate comb-over.) most famous for - more famous than for having been president, having been impeached twice, or having incited an insurrection? Agree with MelanieN, we shouldn't judge people by their appearance, and the fact that Trump mocks people for their appearance all the time is a clear indication that it is wrong. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I've been mildly supportive of inclusion before, though I am on the fence about it really. I write merely to note that while Obama could not do anything about his ears, Trump has gone to great lengths to construct his...gold hairstack? Its something he has worked on and that is important to him for his image. Perhaps one could write a brief description of his attention to personal details generally (in "Public profile"), briefly mentioning the hair as an example among others? Bdushaw (talk) 06:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Given the fact that there is another article, and given the fact that this article is way oversized, and given the fact that nothing important follows from Trump's hair (as far as I can tell), I would say it definitely should not be included.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Could we analyze policy? When an article is WP:TOOBIG, we decide what stays and what goes based on WP:WEIGHT. So if Trump's hair is one of the most WP:NOTEWORTHY things about him, then it should be included over other content, correct? For example, we could remove In Gallup's annual poll asking Americans to name the man they admire the most.... Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

 if Trump's hair is one of the most WP:NOTEWORTHY things about him, then it should be included over other content, correct? False premise. Trump’s hair is by no means one of the most noteworthy things about him. Trump has been in the public eye for many decades - has worked hard to make sure he is. His business deals, his TV presence, and ultimately his political career including four years as president and his current campaign to stay in the news - all of this is what makes him a household name around the world. To claim that his hair is "something he is most famous for" is laughable; his hair is a trivial side issue. Is Queen Elizabeth most famous for wearing hats? So yes, let's analyze policy. As noted above, this article is very, very long, so per Wikipedia practice we spin off these less important details into daughter articles. That is what we have done with his hair, which is rightly relegated to the “public image” article. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

its trivial nonsense.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Trump's (or Don King's or Rod Blagojevich's) hair is well-known, because it is mocked or highlighted in caricatures and comedy, just like other non-average aspects of physical appearance among famous people. Not the same thing as being noteworthy by an encyclopedia's standards. I agree with MelanieN that the premise of noteworthiness is false, and I don't think this article should write about his hair. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so I will take the answer of "if Trump's hair is one of the most WP:NOTEWORTHY things about him, then it should be included over other content, correct?" to be "yes". How do we determine whether this is DUE for his public profile/image section? Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

No, because I'd phrase it "if Trump's hair is one of the most WP:NOTEWORTHY things about him, then it should be included over content that is not as noteworthy". That would be correct, in my opinion. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

How do you get "I will take the answer...to be yes", when three replies said this shouldn't be included? The question here is not "Should the most noteworthy things about a person be included?" Of course they should. The question here is, "Is his hair one of those most noteworthy things about him?" And the answer here is a resounding no. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2021

Huh? by no means means yes? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Sluzzelin, I think we're on the same page. Now let's evaluate how noteworthy his hair is. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

"Now" let's evaluate how noteworthy his hair is? That's what we've been doing all along. Just read the discussion, please; that's how such questions are decided here. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Note, noteworthy and well known do not mean the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not communicating well. I hear that folks are saying that his hair is not noteworthy, but I don't know what that opinion is based on. What I would like to do is evaluate the sources, and figure out where to look. I'm not sure how to best measure the DUEness. We could look at how many hits "Donald Trump's hair" gets on Google, we could look at articles about his image, and we could look at whole biographies, etc. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

What does it tell us about him? What does it tell us we need to know and do not already say?Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking, but I'll try to start doing some research about his public image:

"One of the most noticeable things about Donald Trump is his unique mane of longish “golden” hair."[16] Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

What I am asking is what does this tell us, that we do not already say. We can see what he looks like, we have pictures. So why do we need to mention his hair? If we leave this out will the reader be going "I did not think this was about Donald "the Hair" Trump but the other Donald Trump not famous for his hair"?Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I see. We wouldn't be including it to educate readers about what his hair looks like; it's to tell readers that he is known for his hair. Still researching:

"The Art of the Hair", chapter from Trump's book, How to Get Rich.[17] Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't devote a single paragraph to Trump's hair, because (in any event without embedment in relevant context) it tells us nothing about who he was & is, what he did & does, why he's important, etc. I won't oppose including commentary on his hair in an image caption (preferably à la punny The Economist, and not à la Vanity Fair's "his hair breaks over his collar like a viscous, bird-killing oil slick" (1999)). I won't oppose mentioning it within the body of text, where due and appropriate regarding that context. But it's really not worth mentioning per se. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion at this point about how much is said, but I feel strongly that we should at least mention his hair. I see very little in the article about his image except where he is described as "an emblem of the successful tycoon" at Donald Trump#Books. I think we need just a couple sentences from the beginning of Public image of Donald Trump. Maybe something about the image he's had as a playboy, as a symbol of aspirational wealth, and his brashness. We could mention his hair there. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I think this image and similar caption would be great, if there is space:

Trump in 2015. He is known for his unique hair and his skin color.

Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Seems to me it is not his hair, per se, that is the principal issue, but rather his vanity. Of which his hair, facial make up, giant gold lettering on his buildings, etc etc are examples. Other examples are that he never apologies or admits that he is wrong (cf the nutty hurricane in Arkansas "scandal"). The article does not describe this vanity, which is an important element of his biography. This to argue for a brief new subsection in Public profile on vanity, in which hair might be mentioned. It is off-track to be arguing over hair... Bdushaw (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Vanity isn't a matter of public perception, it's a personality trait. We've had several discussions about including Trump's mental—uh,issues—in the health section, and the consensus was not to include remote diagnoses of any kind by experts and non-experts alike. IMO it stands to reason that Trump has daddy issues. He's obsequious towards "strongmen" like Putin and Erdogan and demands obsequiousness from everyone else, for example from governors wanting federal assistance during the COVID-19 crisis. (BUT—remote diagnosis!) Hair, whatever that substance is he slathers on his face, length of ties, ill-fitting pants, toilet paper stuck under his shoe, being unable to close an umbrella, etc, those are all subjects for cartoons, talk shows, and providing color for newspaper articles, but they're not encyclopedic. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  I find it funny that he has that much money, but can't dress and groom himself worth a damn. --Khajidha (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how we decide what is encyclopedic other than what the RS say, and we do cover the subjects of cartoons. See Richard Nixon, a featured article: "Editorial cartoonists and comedians often exaggerated his appearance and mannerisms.... He was often portrayed with unshaven jowls, slumped shoulders, and a furrowed, sweaty brow."[18] More featured articles which mention appearances:

  • Michael Jackson's "skin had been medium-brown during his youth, but from the mid-1980s gradually grew paler...Jackson said he had had two rhinoplasty surgeries and a cleft chin surgery".[19]
  • Angelina Jolie's "most recognizable physical features are her many tattoos, eyes, and in particular her full lips."[20]
  • Marilyn Monroe's "screen persona focused on her blonde hair".[21] Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• This is absolutely subarticle content. ~ HAL333 23:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
• This article is too big for trivial things of this nature Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• Unpopular opinion I actually think his hair is notable enough for a sentence. It's obviously important to Trump, considering he took $70,000 in (probably illegal) tax deductions for hair care per The New York Times. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 08:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• I think that was reported in ES wrt the context of tax-minimisation, legal or otherwise, rather than in the context of its pretext, to wit, hair. SPECIFICO talk 14:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Why no public image section?

Maybe I should back up. There isn't really any information on Trump's public image, just his public profile. Shouldn't we say something about his image as we do for other politicians, such as:

• Barack Obama#Cultural and political image
• George W. Bush#Cultural and political image
• Hillary Clinton#Cultural and political image
• Bill Clinton#Public image

Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

How is this proposed "public image" material different from/not covered by the existing public profile section?--Khajidha (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The existing section discusses what he does, whereas a typical public image section will discuss image, personality, and how he is viewed. This content can be found at the beginning of Public image of Donald Trump. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The entire article reflects the way he's most commonly portrayed, in so many aspects. Same as in those other presidents' articles, and same as in Hillary's. All very different people, but all projected to us (readers and editors) by the same sources, deep down. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

His image is essential to his brand. The article doesn't even say what his brand represents. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Making America Great Again is (said to be) basically about reinforcing nationalism, nepotism, isolationism, capitalism, racism, sexism and fascism. Lying has something to do with it, but nobody is sure how because there are lies about that. Physically, the image is even simpler, the camera has no reason to lie. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

His brand existed before "Make American great again". Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

If you mean the "Trump" covered in Business and Media career, it was emblematic of opulence, aspiration and tycoonery, like Mr. Burns (and the early 20th-century callbacks therein). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Right, and we don't mention that that's his brand, and we don't talk about that in his public profile section. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Correct. There is no public profile section because we "talk about that" in his Business and Media career. There's a Branding and licensing subsection (with a spacious main article) and a direct quote from The New Yorker about his "emblem". I didn't invent the above, just paraphrased. Is there something to his outward gimmick not already addressed somewhere in the article? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Trump's career is based on his brand and image, yet from this article it is not clear what that brand is. The text from the Book subsection is out of context; no connection is made to his brand. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

It is everything we say it is. If it wasn't, then why would we say it is? In the papers, the news, every day it is. I think we'll leave it just the way it is. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Problems

This article has some problems I have found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WinnipegMA (talk • contribs) 22:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@WinnipegMA: Feel free to share what they are... ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 00:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 August 2021

This 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. should be changed to Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality, politician and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. as right now it sounds like a Democratic Party PR firm or another anti Trump PR firm writen that part of the article as they seem to assume that Donald Trump was not a politician when a president is a politician 71.169.164.254 (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Please read all the talk page discussions about this issue.Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Trump's border wall and attempts to repeal the ACA taken out of the lead?

Discussion

The sentence on Trump's attempts to build a border wall and attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act has been scrubbed from the lead. I propose the sentence: Trump campaigned for repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and for building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border to control immigration, but repeal of ACA did not pass the Senate and Congress did not allocate funds for building the wall. be added to the lead, just prior to the Tax Cut sentence being discussed above. The rationale is that these were Trump's signature issues, he campaigned on them endlessly during the campaign. The article supports the addition of such a sentence, since these issues are mentioned in several places - the campaign, actions on day one of presidency, and regular subsections on them. The article Trump wall describes Trump's actions for the wall, which involved Trump shutting down the government over funding and him declaring a national emergency to find funds for it. Actions to repeal of the ACA led to the individual mandate removed in the Tax bill, and this occurred prior to the pandemic; actions to undermine the ACA. The proposed sentence is short and simple on purpose; I believe it is correct (recent attempts to elaborate on it were not helpful). These two issues are so obvious, I am baffled why there are objections; this is a biography of Trump and it should describe things that are important to Trump, whether successful or not. See additional argument at the bottom of the Talk section "Restructuring the Lead". Bdushaw (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

:I think this seems reasonable. Both were indeed very significant campaign promises that were not delivered.Pipsally (talk) 06:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)</> Blocked sockpuppet account I forgot to sign this edit. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Also support adding one sentence like that to the lede. ––FormalDude^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 19:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Opposed to this per Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk)'s rational in prior discussions about basically this above on this page. Trump made a lot of campaign promises that we don't cover, what makes these special above the rest? And we can hardly flood the page with each one unless you want to go back and do them all for every President. Like I dont suppose the editors pushing for this here would want to add how Obama failed at instituting a public option into the ACA that he campaigned on, or a raise in the minimum wage on his article page. Don't suppose they'd want to add how Biden failed to deliver a minimum wage increase or student loan relief or free community college etc if it fails to materialise during his Presidency either. So I have no idea why we need to attempt to reset the standard here. Plus this conversation was essentially already had above, why has it gotten a new section to re-debate it again? So a few editors can quickfire agree with each other, say there's consensus and pack it onto the page? Davefelmer (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

There is a multitude of reliable sources that 1) state this was a key 2016 campaign promise of Trump's and 2) show significant coverage that makes this promise notable. Such as:

• Reuters "Trump promised to repeal Obamacare. Now what?"
• ABC "President-elect Donald Trump campaigned on a promise of a full repeal of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, as one of his first acts in office."
• BBC "Candidate Donald Trump echoed this when he labelled the [Affordable Care Act] a "disaster" and promised something much better if he were elected president."
• Washington Post "Trump has vowed to 'repeal and replace' Obamacare."
• NPR "President-elect Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers have signaled their intention to follow through on their campaign promise to repeal President Obama's landmark health care legislation." ––FormalDude ^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 22:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Dude, who cares? Do I have to re-paste my entire comment so you get the point here? You could find just as many sources for any of his other big campaign promises, so again as numerous editors brought up, do we include them all? Then of course you can find just as many sources talking about Obama running on a public option, and increasing the minimum wage. Likewise Biden on both as well as cancelling student loans and more. So do we add in all of those as failures on the others' pages, and go back and do this for every Pres? Davefelmer (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The "just as many sources" may support my second statement that there is coverage, but few would support support my first statement that they were a major campaign promise of Trump's. ––FormalDude ^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 01:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I think including a sentence about the fate of the wall would be worth doing, considering it was by far one of his biggest campaign pledges and a policy item which is/was closely tied to Trump's personal image, also the fact that its debates in Congress resulted in the longest shutdown ever (which I also think should be mentioned). I think the currently proposed sentence is a little misleading though. Per Trump wall article, 455 miles of barrier were built during Trump's term, including 49 miles of which were entirely new barrier. A sentence which I had up in the article before it was taken down was something like "Trump campaigned for building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, however construction was not fully completed during his term, despite debates in Congress resulting in the longest government shutdown in U.S. history." I think that would be a more fitting sentence. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 01:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

455 miles of barrier were built ... including 49 miles of which were entirely new barrier Per the Houston Chronicle, Most of that was to replace existing structures that were outdated or in disrepair, per WaPo, it was an undertaking whose main achievement was the replacement of smaller, more permeable anti-vehicle barriers with imposing 30-foot-tall steel bars. (Some of those "imposing 30-foot-tall steel bars" got blown into Mexico or were about to fall into the Rio Grande, so basically no improvement over the former "smaller, more permeable anti-vehicle barriers".) Trump also promised that Mexico would pay for it, and Mexico did not pay for the 49 miles of new or 406 miles of replacement fence out of the promised 2000. Trump had many signature campaign issues—if something he mentioned got enthusiastic crowd support, he added it to his routine, and the more outlandish the claim, the more publicity he got. It's fine for Trump wall, the Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign, and Donald_Trump#2016_presidential_campaign#Trump wall and government shutdown, but it's just one of a long list of campaign promises not kept. Not putting any of his campaign issues, no matter how egregious, in the lead also seems to be in line with the articles on other presidents. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

As a non-American, I saw Trump's border wall was one of the major parts of his international image. A lot of the other things mentioned above were obviously important internally, bit did not get the international coverage of the wall. It seems odd to me for it to not get a mention in the lead. Remember that Wikipedia is global, not just for Americans. HiLo48 (talk) 10:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The added text was misleading as Trump did manage to build some new wall (the text suggests he built no wall), though this is obviously less than what he falsely claimed he built and promised. Currently opposed to this Space4Time3Continuum2x's reasoning laid out before, per if you want to add the text please tell what text it should replace (one in one out), as the lead is already too long.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The border was incomplete, his promise that Mexico would pay for it never happened as most people knew was not going to happen. Instead, Trump took out the money from veteran families to his ridiculous fence that was never finished. The construction was not even halfway close to being done in Trump's last day of office and it's a good thing Biden terminated further construction because it would simply be a bad investment, we could spend that money for something useful. Why mention something that Trump not only didn't accomplish but lie (and cause the longest shutdown in US History)? I think it would hurt his integrity. Dinosauce2001 (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a significant part of his life story that he was able to win the presidency on a promise that "most people knew was not going to happen" and then fail to deliver and then still run a neck-and-neck reelection campaign and maintain control over the Republican party to this day. That's a noteworthy accomplishment and characteristic of his success. SPECIFICO talk 17:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I like the sarcasm but that's the entire story of his life, failing and then being able to sell the failures as big successes. Whether or not that particular promise enabled him to win the presidency, we'll never know. Personally, I agree with 538 that Comey's "we found e-mails" letter on October 28, 2016, may have just given Trump enough votes in some swing states to win the Electoral College. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

No sarcasm intended. This article is about Trump the man, not his presidency per se, and I think the article still contains a lot of content that misses the point about Trump's life. The article still reflects the trap that the mainstream media and expert analysts fell into from say 2015-2020. That trap was to interpret Trump as if he were a conventional politician who 1) sought the office with the purpose of engagement in governance and public policy and 2) Knew enough to hire competent staff of whatever ideology and to assimilate their advice in the context of history and factual evience presented. But Trump is increasingly being viewed in more recent journalism and expert analysis as an incompetent and easily distracted character who was indifferent to the official role and was predominantly interested in personal aggrandizement and flattery. I think it's undeniable, and RS have commented on this at some length, that he is a master of public communication, branding, and messaging. In that regard, arguably he eclipses Reagan.

So, with respect to these editorial decisions, my reading of RS has led me on several occasions to suggest we should not confuse his administration's achievements with his personal biography except in cases for which we have detailed reports of his personal involvement. As to whether he knew that he was skirting the limits of his authority and of legal behavior in office, it is too early to have sufficient evidence for that. But I think, e.g. that his administration's Covid policies and messaging that RS tell us led to hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths can only be understood in the context of his ignorance, self-absorbtion, and misguided personal rumination about policy rather than as an evil, rationally considered choice to sacrifice their lives for his re-election or political legacy. SPECIFICO talk 19:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal added and reverted

I've read through the above arguments and implemented statements to the lead that try to respond to the sundry points of view. The consensus, IMO, was to include these statements. I noted, BTW, that the lead had only one domestic item for his presidency, viz the Tax bill. Now it has three. Bdushaw (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I count a small 5 to 4 majority for adding something to the lead, with two editors saying to keep it to one sentence. The previous version: He signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 which cut taxes for individuals and businesses and rescinded the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Act. The new version: Although Trump had campaigned for a U.S.-Mexico border wall, Congress did not allocate funds for it, so he reallocated existing funding to replace 400 miles of barriers and build 49 miles of new wall. Trump promised to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but the repeal did not pass the Senate. He signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 which cut taxes for individuals and businesses and rescinded the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the ACA. Sorry, I don't see a consensus for this change, and the phrasing needs work. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting, Space4Time3. My position remains in support of no more than one sentence added. I don't think the phrasing above is the most ideal. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 22:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Huh??? Space4Time3Continuum2x, you reverted once already, so I took the proposed text to Talk as per procedure. There was a discussion over a reasonable amount of time, I tried to respond to the discussion. You report on a "vote", while, as you know, it is not a vote, nor is it even an RFC; its just a Talk. You reverted again - you've made it clear you dislike the addition, but you do not have veto authority here. You say "phrasing needs work" ... yeah, so per standard Wikipedia process, we should work on the phrasing in the article, yes? I've made no objections to changes to the text. By "phrasing needs work", you seem to be accepting the addition, but do you expect a perfect phrasing to be first hammered out on these Talk pages? That's not how Wikipedia works. If individual editors can claim veto authority, I don't see what the process forward is. Nothing is stopping me from overruling your declaration of "no consensus", and my case is stronger than yours. Bdushaw (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I think we should leave the text out until more discussion occurs and we reach a firmer consensus. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 01:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Additional discussion

• I'd support a short sentence or two like: One of Trump's major campaign promises was for a U.S.-Mexico border wall. The wall was expanded only 49 additional miles while Trump was in office and was not completed as Congress did not authorize funds for it. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 01:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Restructuring the lead

I keep thinking about restructuring the lead, but, frankly, I haven't the energy for the ensuing battle that would occur. But I'll at least mention what I was thinking, roughly. Overall, I keep focused on how the lead should reflect the content of the article. The third paragraph ("Trump's political positions...") seems more and more like it is dangling. I would try to combine it with the presidency paragraph. The lead still is roughly chronological, reflecting the "newsy" response to recent events; that can be useful, but I think a different structure would work more efficiently. I contemplate combining the impeachments into a single paragraph and removing some of the details (e.g. of the Mueller Report). The lead should have a paragraph devoted to "Public Profile" - this seems obvious, given Trump's focus on the issue, and also the large section on that in the article. This new paragraph could include elements of the third paragraph (misleading statements, racism). Lastly, the lead will need a new paragraph on what is happening/long-term impacts post presidency. I heard a comment on Washington Week that Trump's immigration policies were still impacting, dominating even, those of the Biden administration (though I personally think Biden has just had larger issues to deal with and hasn't gotten to immigration yet). If it were up to me, I would just do it, but, well, you know...(I don't have enough banana cream pies for the food fight...) Bdushaw (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I think his messaging and conduct evolved over the course of his presidency as the assemblage of more-or-less establishment staff and advisors jumped ship or walked the plank. At first he was viewed by the establishment republicans as a vessell for things like tax reform and court appointments, but by the end he had fully adopted an authoritarian personal message and transformed the Republican party into its current (fill-in-the-blank) program and platform. There are many long-range effects, most of which we don't fully understand only 5 months after his tenure. SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Bdushaw, easy. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thinking about the lead of this biography, rather than president, there are obvious important omissions from the lead. Omissions that may highlight the difference between the biography and presidency articles. One omission is that Trump talked ad nauseam about the wall on the border with Mexico, Mexico will pay for it, bad people coming across, etc, etc - during the first campaign and then he spent considerable political capital on trying to pay for it, etc. etc. This is a main biographical point - yet there is no mention of this intense focus in the lead, or that it came to little in the end. It is of lessor importance to Presidency, since not much happened, but for the biography it is a key point. Similarly, Trump talked to considerable degree about how he was going to repeal the Affordable Care Act, yet that attempt failed. Again, it didn't happen, so it is of lessor importance to Presidency, but it was a main focus of Trump the man. The lead does not really mention the result that the repeal he had focused on failed. The lead does mention China and tariffs, which is consistent with what I recall his rhetoric was during the first campaign. Similarly with the North Korea issue, and backing out of the Iran nuclear deal. There may be other similar topics - things he talked a lot about and that were important to him, and how those topics played out in his presidency (none come to mind just now). Bdushaw (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I would like to include a sentence like "Although during the campaign Trump vigorously argued for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act and for building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, the repeal of ACA did not pass the senate and neither Congress nor Mexico would allocate funds for building the wall." I note, however, that these issues, quite prominent in the campaign, are barely mentioned in the article. The downplaying of Trump's rhetoric on these issues in the article is a gross mischaracterization of what happened, as I recall 2016. The failure to repeal the ACA was a big deal (recall McCain's famous vote), and the wall issue went on and on as Trump sought ways around Congress's objections. There was a sentence on the ACA before, but it got removed - given the importance of the issue to Trump, that was likely a mistake. An example of the difference between biography and presidency articles, perhaps. Bdushaw (talk) 06:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I've added a version of the proposed sentence to the lead. I post here to note that the next/following sentence, "He enacted the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 which cut taxes for individuals and businesses and rescinded the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the ACA." has hardly any support in the article! "cut taxes for individuals and businesses", while obvious, is not evident in the article, while the "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017" is relegated to an associated article. Bdushaw (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Thinking about this sentence ("He enacted the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act..."), and reading the associated article, I do not know why this sentence is in the lead. The sentence seems entirely political/POV: "Trump enacted"???, "cut taxes..etc." and increased the deficit and did many other things, it reads like a bullet on a "re-elect me" brochure, and Trump himself had very little to do with it. The sentence may be an example of the difference between the biography article and the presidency article - I don't think it is appropriate in the lead for the former, but is likely for the latter. Given its lack of substantiation in the article, and these reasons, I'll likely remove the sentence - but pause here for comment. Bdushaw (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree, this was one of several passive involvements. He signed the bill, that's dog bites man. SPECIFICO talk 02:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x has reverted out the sentence I added referring to the ACA and the wall. I could not disagree more...not only were these elements of primary importance to Trump, for a long time, the article content supports their addition to the lead. "Too much detail"? Forsooth! Perhaps the sentence could be condensed, I was striving for clarity. Meanwhile the sentence before (Muslim ban) and after (Tax cut) are barely supported by the article. Seems bass-ackwards. Since we were discussing these sentences prior to the revert, I am puzzled by the lack of discussion prior to the revert. Bdushaw (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't make the connection between your edit and this Restructuring section. I wouldn't object to replacing "enacted" with "signed" but I oppose a sentence on Trump aggressively campaigning on something that wasn't done in the end. Muslim ban and trickle-down tax cut (hello, trillion dollar deficit with nothing to show for it except stock buy-backs), those took place and, IMO, are part of his legacy. I'd prefer "enacted" because this was something he wanted which also benefited his personal bottom line. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

In my view the reasons you give don't hold up (and we are just talking here!). The rationale "something that wasn't done in the end" has been given before, but this argument doesn't work - this article is a biography of Donald Trump; not President Donald Trump, not the Presidency of Donald Trump. As a biography, it is about him - his interests, things he spends time on, successes and failures. As mentioned above, Trump spent enormous time and political capital on the Wall and "repeal and replace" the ACA. They warrant a mention in the lead, and indeed the article supports them; as anyone can see in the article. The 2017 Tax cut is most definitely not supported, as you can see for yourself; in particular the phrase "cut taxes for individuals and businesses" is not mentioned in the article. The main article on the 2017 Tax Cut barely mentions Trump - I believe it was a Republican initiative more than a Trump initiative. I don't disagree with your assessment of the consequences of the law, but those are not relevant to this biography - indeed, those are external arguments not given in this article. I don't entirely object to the Muslim ban in the lead, but I do note that its support is a mere brief section/paragraph in the article, that barely notes its importance. I contemplate changing the 2017 Tax Cut sentence to "The individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Act was rescinded by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017", leading a determination of Trump's role up to the reader. (I seem to be one of the few people who try to adhere to the guideline that the lead should reflect the content of the article!) Bdushaw (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand your arguments. Are you saying that the lead must use the exact phrases we use in the body of the article? The Health section says that The 2017 tax bill signed by Trump effectively repealed the ACA's individual health insurance mandate in 2019 while the Economy and trade section says Trump signed tax legislation that permanently cut the corporate tax rate to 21 percent etc. IMO those two sections support the lead's summary. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

RE exact phrases, no, not saying that, though it can be helpful. I noted some of the language you mention after I posted above; I should have been more careful. It is a matter of weight, of course - there is more weight in the article concerning repeal of the ACA and the wall than the tax cut; both are mentioned several places, as they were during the campaign (many times). And as you note it is "the tax bill that repealed mandate" and it is "the tax legislation that permanently cut". Trump was not so much personally invested in this legislation as he was the wall and repeal the ACA; I view the tax legislation as Republican, rather than Trump, legislation. He is still visiting the border regarding the wall. As I noted, the main tax cut article barely mentions Trump; he was not as personally invested in it as "repeal and replace" (with something way better, though there was never a plan) and "Mexico will pay for it"; those were Trump signature issues. There is perhaps some phrasing that might be employed that may be more efficient: "Trump campaigned for Muslim ban, wall, repeal ACA, Tax cuts. Muslim ban eventually upheld, wall not funded, ACA not repealed, but individual mandate eliminated by Tax cut legislation." IMO the article rather downplays the repeal of ACA and building the wall, compared to how I remember Trump's intensity on those issues during the campaign and Trump's ongoing drama trying to get the wall funded (government shutdown and national emergency). Bdushaw (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I do not think it was worth adding that content to the lead here, should be on the Presidency article. The lead is already long enough as it is, and I think others have suggested it before, but I think we need a 1 in 1 out policy in terms content in the lead. I.e. want to add a mention of X about Trump in the lead? Fine. What sentence do we remove as well for it to fit?  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the Tax cuts should be in the lede - as they have been for a few years. They were a key part of his presidency - presented as a big achievement for Trump and the Republicans - and opposed by the Democrats. And, for example, G. W. Bush’s tax cuts feature prominently in the lede of his article. For balance, while I do see the validity of adding the failure to repeal ACA to the lede, at the same time the rescinding of the ACA individual mandate should also feature.

In terms of the border wall, while he didn’t receive Congressional funding; ultimately, he did receive funds for construction through the national emergency declaration. This should be in the lede. The current phrasing suggests that no money was received and therefore no wall was built - which of course is untrue. JLo-Watson (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I also agree with the proposer about reducing/removing the detail re. the Mueller Report. The impeachments are significant and will be in the history books but the Mueller probe is not really as significant now (while it was certainly at the time). JLo-Watson (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• The second sentence in the fourth paragraph has now been changed numerous times within the last few days, so clearly there is a need to discuss it. I just reverted it to the version that was established months ago. Trump campaigned for: he also promised to bring back manufacturing, make no cuts to Medicaid, place a lifetime bans on White House officials lobbying for foreign governments and on foreign lobbyists raising money for U.S. elections, etc., and failed to deliver on them. One promise he did keep—pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement. We don't mention any of those in the lead. What makes the border wall and his failure to repeal the entire ACA more important than the other campaign promises, kept or not? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Well, you can see the arguments I made above. Also the article text: text in Campaign, declarations first day in office, the various activities to get the wall funded, the attempt to repeal of the ACA (just prior to pandemic), failing to repeal so remove individual mandate, Trump's (and it was Trump) government shutdown over wall funding, Trump's declaration of national emergency, etc. These things did not occur for the other issues you mention. The lead should reflect article text. This is a biography of Trump, not an article on his presidency. Bdushaw (talk) 03:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Moving on, I still think the lead is fairly distorted compared to the article content. I contemplate consolidating the Mueller text into the election paragraph. The lead has the sentences "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist. He has a history of insulting and belittling women." - I was contemplating that someone from the political right would object to such statements, or dismiss them as "so what". Indeed, one could contemplate language that would frame the issue along the lines of "he tried to dismiss the race issue and restore the nation to its better past" (or whatever, you get the idea). I don't speak "right" which is part of my point. How and what would an objective Trumpist (???) state some of these things; I suppose the principal problem is that such statements collapse against a mountain of facts and basic logic. I was reading recently how part of the problem with the present government's attempts to address the climate change issue is that most of the climate scientists resigned during the Trump admin.; Trump's about faces on the climate issue (bring back coal; rescind energy standards; back out of climate treaties; ignore the issue for four years) were a serious errors on this important topic - becoming more obviously important as the summer progresses. Bdushaw (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

the "belittling women" statement is unsourced and so either should be sourced (in something other than an opinion article), or removed. Locking the page with this crap is a textbook example of political bias in wikipedia. Women's individual accusations against Trump can be listed and either stand on their own merits or do not. 141.156.238.241 (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Material in the lede does not have to be sourced if it is sourced in the body of the article, this is.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Change lead sentence about insulting women

We should change the last sentence of the third paragraph in the lead: "He has a history of insulting and belittling women." My main rationale is that, especially considering the sentence that precedes it, it is somewhat vague and unsightly. Plus, not everyone insulted or belittled by him has been a man. In my opinion, we should instead devote that sentence to the sexual misconduct allegations made against him and say something like, "He has also been the subject of numerous sexual misconduct allegations." Songwaters (talk) 23:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that may have been put in there in place of "history of misogyny" - when it was suggested to say that he has a history of racism and misogyny. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

the statement is also unsourced and so either should be sourced (with something other than an opinion article), or removed. And the page is locked with this? This is a textbook example of political bias in wikipedia.141.156.238.241 (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Sources are not used in the lead; whatever is in the lead has to be based on sourced material in the article itself. Sourced material about his issues with women is found in the section Donald Trump#Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

NK weapons

North Korea continued to build up its arsenal of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

I believe this sentence is redundant as we have just said that nuke talks broke down. It is also somewhat misleading. Both sources used clearly state that the lack of nuclear bomb tests is a fact, while NK's continued build up of weapons is intelligence analysis:

• "While Kim hasn’t detonated a nuclear bomb since 2017, experts believe he has continued to make progress toward developing warheads that could overwhelm U.S. antimissile systems."
• "While North Korea has refrained from carrying out provocative tests of its most advanced weapon systems, it never stopped working on them, U.S. intelligence officials said."

Arguably we should add that NK hasn't conducted a nuclear bomb or ICBM test since 2017. But this is not an article about NK. Therefore this sentence should be removed.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• • While this article is not NK, it is about Trump, and leaving out NK would not tell the reader about Trump’s progress or lack thereof regarding NK. I’m okay with adding the lack of nuclear tests. NK may not have tested ICBMs but they tested medium range and short range BMs, I think, so… I guess I would just not mention the BM tests altogether. starship.paint (exalt) 14:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • WaPo:

    Southeast of the capital, meanwhile, new buildings sprouted across an industrial complex that was processing uranium for as many as 15 new bombs, according to current and former U.S. and South Korean officials, as well as a report by a United Nations panel of experts.

    starship.paint (exalt) 14:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Which is an intelligence guess.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Then we can simply cite it as that. starship.paint (exalt) 05:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

References

The sentence isn't redundant, and we shouldn't add that it's a guess. "Intelligence is the product resulting from the collection, collation, evaluation, analysis, integration, and interpretation of collected information", per NSA Intelligence Threat Handbook, not an opinion, i.a., a guess, based on little or no information. That the intelligence is occasionally misused, e.g., by politicians (Iraq's WMD), is a different matter. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, "guess" was the incorrect term. It is "intelligence", but I think you have a false take on Iraq's WMD, as the intelligence community was pushing this interpretation on politicians. In this case, in all sources it seems to be described as being according to "experts", "officials" etc. The statement in this article — "North Korea continued to build up its arsenal of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles" — seems to me to have no precise meaning. "Nuclear weapons" usually are interpreted as meaning "ballistic missiles". A "ballistic missile" could mean any missile at all. To "build up" an "arsenal" doesn't necessary mean to add an extra weapon to that arsenal. It could just mean enhance the arsenal in some way, even merely by thinking about it. So unless NK has been actively decommissioning significant numbers of "nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles" without telling anyone about it, then this piece of fudge has to be true. It is only really necessary in this article, because certain editors think this is the "Donny Sux" club website...--Jack Upland (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Israel in the lead?

Davefelmer made this this good faith edit to add Israel to the lead, calling Trump a "strong supporter" of Israel. While this is not inaccurate, it's not descriptive. Almost every U.S. politician can be described as a "strong supporter" of Israel. Something valid in the lead could mention the Abraham Accords or Jerusalem embassy. I believe there is consensus against mentioning the Abraham Accords in the lead? What about the embassy? Is there consensus for that? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

It isn't mentioned in the body, and hasn't been mentioned in the news since 2018. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Omit. SPECIFICO talk 21:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Historical ranking

@Slatersteven: Your statement in the edit summary is incorrect. There have been three scholarly surveys done which included Trump and they have consistent on where they rank Trump. Interstellarity (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

So far, but he is still, alive, hell we do not yet know how Biden will turn out. We are too close to events for a fair and unbiased appraisal of his impact, legacy and ranking. This kind of analysis can only really be done years (if not decades) later.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I think he meant one one President since Trump, not one survey. Anyhow, I think this is a matter of time - the equivalent info is in the Obama article from surveys a year after he left office. If people want to let the dust settle for a year or two they can. Trump'll still be the worst in a year's time and it can go in then.Pipsally (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Given his divisiveness, I would say wait for mone whole (presidential) election. Let's see how Biden compares, hell Trump might even be the next president.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

See the previous discussion on the topic. Oppose any such inclusion for the lead, still for too early to determine his impact, legacy, etc, etc.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

We mention the C-SPAN survey in the Approval ratings section. The consensus in the previous discussion was against putting it in the lead. No objection to rewording the short paragraph to add the 2018 survey by the two political science professors (NY Times op-ed) to it. They surveyed "presidential politics experts" as opposed to C-SPAN's general historians and published an article on the results in 2020. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you think a good rule of thumb would be to wait until there are at least two presidents after the president in focus has left office before adding historical data of Trump or any president in general rather than add historical rankings right after they leave office? My take is that any president that has left office more than 25 years ago can absolutely have their historical rankings in the article since their legacies have likely been settled. This would include all presidents prior to George H. W. Bush. While presidents after Clinton are still developing their legacies. I'd be interested to know when the historical rankings got into the Obama article. Was it a year after his presidency or more? Is there a guideline on how long we should wait before deciding to add historical rankings? I appreciate anyone's thoughts. Interstellarity (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. After a president has been out of office for a year or so, there will be scholarly historical evaluations, and we should and do mention the serious, well-conducted ones. As we already do in the "ratings" section. Sure, the ratings may change in 25 years and we can update them then, but we don't have to wait that long. (Why 25 years? Why not 50, or 100?) On the other hand, I oppose adding the 2018 survey (of "presidential politics experts", whatever that means, but I suspect it means people who evaluate them on a purely political basis) or any other surveys conducted while he was still president. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by purely political basis. Party politics? The "presidential politics experts" mentioned in the NY Times op-ed cited in Interstellarity's reverted edit are political scientists. The op-ed was written by two of the three political science professors (Rottinghaus, Eady, and Vaughn) who conducted the "expert survey of political scientists who study the presidency", per the abstract of the article published in 2020. They also looked at how party affiliation/affinity affected the rankings (slightly)—Trump dead last (#44) among Democratic-leaning experts, #43 among independent-leaning, #40 among Republican-leaning. What are the chances these rankings have improved in the last two years? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I stand corrected about the meaning of "presidential politics experts". But I stand by my opinion that we should not publish any "historical ranking" studies published while he was still president. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Let’s be clear what we are talking about. Today this was added to the lead by User:Interstellarity, removed by User:Slatersteven, re-added by User:Pipsally, and re-removed by User:Czello. Removal was the correct thing to do, because at this discussion a month ago, it was agreed not to put this kind of comment in the lead. That discussion was only about the lead. The sentence in the Ratings section was not specifically discussed at that time but its presence seemed to be generally accepted by most people, although a few said it should be removed. Is that what people are now discussing - whether to have any mention at all of historical rankings, including in the Ratings section? That would need consensus to remove, because it is longstanding content, but it is a valid topic for discussion. Let's just be clear what we are discussing/proposing. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I would leave it out of the lead because it hasn't obtained the level of coverage to make it that important. As a general rule, since Nixon the current or last Republican president is the worst president in history until a new Republican president is elected. Then his record is re-evaluated and eventually Speaker Pelosi says, “I'm so sorry, President Bush. I never thought I'd pray for the day that you were president again.”[22] TFD (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

As funny as that passage was, I have a different take. The people going into an election have a right to understand the rigorous consensus around a major party figure to make a decision about how to strategically pick their next nominee. Without someone endogenizing the cost of evaluation, all markets tend toward a lemon market (Grossman-Stiglitz). Burying the lead on this is a disservice to the people examining a political party's past. Signaling in an election can be very expensive, especially in such a balkanized media landscape, which is what makes this volunteer-based and free website so valuable. The historical evaluation should be put in no later than January of 2023, when the primary season for the 2024 election begins in earnest (at least, the shadow primary). Adamopoulos (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

TFD, surely you wouldn't deny that each succeeding Republican president might have been "worse" than his or her predecessor? At least since Wilson? SPECIFICO talk 18:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

We thought we had hit rock-bottom but then we heard someone knocking from below. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 August 2021

Per MOS:NOBACKREF, please remove "COVID-19" from the section headings "COVID-19 outbreak at the White House" and "COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 presidential campaign". Both are redundant with the parent heading. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 08:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Elli (talk | contribs) 19:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. However, your change to the second heading created a grammatical inconsistency between it and the preceding one. "Outbreak at the White House" includes the article "the", but "Effects on 2020 presidential campaign" omits it (before "2020"). It looks like the article favors inclusion of "the", as seen in "Support from the far-right", "Election to the presidency", "Impeachment trial in the Senate", "2021 storming of the Capitol", and "Relationship with the press"—with the exception of "Family separation at border". 68.97.42.64 (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done ––FormalDude talk 05:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

At Kim's suggestion

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.

---

At Kim's suggestion, Trump met Kim three times: in Singapore in 2018, in Hanoi in 2019, and in the Korean Demilitarized Zone in 2019.

I don't think all three meetings were at Kim's suggestion. The source for this actually predates the other two meetings. The DMZ meeting was clearly suggested by Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

References

I think we can leave "at Kim's suggestion"; it is clearly sourced. The initial idea of a meeting between the two was suggested by Kim, via his ambassador the South Korean ambassador my mistake, at the time he was the South Korean security advisor, and Trump immediately accepted on the spot. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I suppose we could change it to "After a his envoy South Korean ambassador diplomat relayed Kim's suggestion that the two leaders meet..." -- MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

That implies the highly unlikely scenario that the South Korean ambassador played go-between. -- Valjean (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

He absolutely did. Read the source: Kim's invitation was relayed by Chung Eui-yong in a White House meeting. We have no diplomatic relations with North Korea, so it is not uncommon for South Korea to act as a go-between for messages between the two countries. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

But that only relates to the first meeting. That was my point.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, considering that this is a biography maybe we shouldn't go into a lot of detail in any case. All right, I am OK with removing it. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

This error was probably caused by someone who trimmed or merged the content of the later meetings. For sure, the first meeting was Kim’s suggestion, and as my memory goes, the suggestion was just tied in to the first meeting in earlier versions of the article. starship.paint (exalt) 14:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Neutrality: - I’m afraid this was your mistake in Feb 2021. starship.paint (exalt) 14:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe we just cut the first three words. Neutrality^talk 20:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Alright, I’ve cut it. starship.paint (exalt) 00:48, 16 August 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.

Politician description in lead

Should we really be describing him as a politician in the lead? He only ever held one political office so he's not exactly a career politician. Векочел (talk) 05:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Векочел: Seems a naive argument to not describe someone who held the office of President of the United States as a 'politician'.

Not to mention Trump has been in political circles and mulling running for office since the 80s, or that Trump has been an official presidential candidate three times and unofficially once. A mostly failed politician is still a politician. Would you propose we delete Political career of Donald Trump too? ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 06:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

It's redundant. If the reason we call him a politician is that he was president, then it is redundant to say he was president and a politician. This may be a rebuttal of Trump's populist claim that he was not a politician. Any rebuttals should be made in a straightforward rather than subtle way. TFD (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Makes a certain amount of sense. SPECIFICO talk 01:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Trump is a career politician and has been for the greater part of the past two decades. That's why I don't see any problem with labeling him as one.

I'm not super familiar with his "populist claim that he was not a politician", are you referring to his campaign mantra that he was not part of "the swamp"? ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 01:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Before becoming president, Trump's career was in real estate and media. Reliable sources did not describe him as a career politician. You can see one of his claims that he is not a politician in CNN's 2015 clip: "Donald Trump: I'm not a politician ..." He said, "I’m not a politician, and have never wanted to be one. But when I saw the trouble our country was in, I knew I couldn’t stand by and watch any longer. Our country has been so good to me, I love our country, I felt I had to act.”[23] Reliable sources commented on this appeal. (See for example "Why they love Trump: 'He's not a politician'" (BBC News 10 June 2016). Even this article notes he was "the first U.S. president without prior military or government service."

Of course one can argue that he really is a politician. But generally we would say something like, "Although Trump claimed not to be a politician, political scientists have pointed out that anyone who runs for office/holds office etc. is by definition a politician. Factcheck.org rated Trump's claim as four Pinocchios, their highest rating for false claims." The way we approach it is in my opinion passive-aggressive and tendentious.

TFD (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

There's no need to go to great lengths explaining, or trying to weasel out of the fact that he is a politician now, even if he arguably wasn't before 2015. This is the lead sentence, and it explains what the person IS. If he wasn't primarily a politician in the past, he certainly is one now. It's probably the best known feature of his identity now. Check out other "non-politicians" who have held elective office: Jesse Ventura, Arnold Schwartzenegger, Al Franken - each of them held office once, after a lifetime of other careers, and each of them is described in the lead sentence as a politician (along with the other stuff).-- MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

If Trump is a politician because he was president, why do we say that he was president AND a politician? Can you tell me what additional information saying he was a politician provides? TFD (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Why do we say he is an American who was president of the United States? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Great point, we should remove "American" too because it's bloody obvious that a President of the United States is an American politician. But to remove "American" or add "politician" will require a new RFC and since the last one ended in March, I think it's too soon. Levivich 15:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Is there a mandatory or customary waiting period that I'm not aware of? The discussion in March wasn't even an RfC, it was your "lead sentence proposal" that gave us a choice of four lead sentences, none of which included politician. Also, if I remember correctly, there were three or four different discussions about the lead sentence/paragraph going on at pretty much the same time or not much earlier because editors kept starting new ones. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: It looks like we do not use the word "politician" anywhere in the lede section. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 20:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

It was added and deleted a few times recently. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Per consensus item 50, based on this RfC (don't get me started on the merits of it) and confirmed by this one, the first sentence should not include "politician". I supported including "politician". Should we regard this as a new discussion to support adding the term? If that's the case, I vote aye, based on reality. What's the distinction between a politician and a career politician? If you run for political office and then assume that political office, you're a politician, especially if you don't shut up and retire to your golf course/real estate empire after you're voted out of said political office. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I still think we should include "politician" in his descriptives, and would so argue if a new RfC is opened. Note that the last one - the one cited in the "current consensus" list - found no consensus on whether or not to say "poltician" and left the question open. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

RfC about adding "conspiracy theorist" to the lede

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Procedural close - withdrawn by nominator. I'm withdrawing this RfC due to concerns with the question it asks. It requires clarification as to how Donald Trump's promotion of conspiracy theories should be described in the lead section. I will likely reopen a more specific RfC shortly. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 03:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

---

This RfC is the result of a previous discussion.
Should Trump be described as a conspiracy theorist in the lede?

Yes: Label Trump a "Conspiracy theorist" or similar verbiage (such as "promotes conspiracy theories") in the lead section.
No: Do not call Trump a "Conspiracy theorist" or similar verbiage in the lead section.
––FormalDude talk 15:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey 2

• B/C While sources say he peddles conspiracy theories, they do not describe him as a conspiracy theorist. It is not his primary occupation, or what he is best known for, so simply describing what he has done (sharing conspiratorial misinformation) is superior to adding another "profession" to his lede. In this vein, while B is acceptable, I would rather a variant that explicitly mentions his sharing of conspiracy theories without calling him a conspiracy theorist, which seems to be a common approach across RS. BSMRD (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit: Soft Yes while my above concerns stand, I would rather have the label than not. BSMRD (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused on the difference that you're denoting between a conspiracy theorist and someone who peddles conspiracy theories. Merriam Webster defines conspiracy theorist as a person who proposes or believes in a conspiracy theory. ––FormalDude talk 18:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

It's mostly just the way he is covered in RS. I would prefer the description of his actions, as opposed to a label. I know the difference is semantic, and when boiled down to Y/N on calling him a conspiracy theorist I'll say yes, but when given the opportunity for a descriptive sentence I'll opt for that. BSMRD (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• No: it's not what he's mainly known for. I think also the phrases "conspiracy theories" and "conspiracy theorist" are subject to interpretation. Sometimes they simply perjorative. Sometimes they refer strictly to belief in conspiracies; sometimes they just refer to an outlandish view.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• No: Ok so Trump should certainly not be called a "conspiracy theorist" in the 1st sentence, that would be massively undue. I'm also opposed to including this within the lead body paragraphs. Firstly, there is already a consensus to not include the birtherism, and I don't feel that precedent shouldn't be ignored since it shows a pre-existing opposition to including conspiracy related activity. The only conspiracy theory Trump is truly notable for spreading is the 2020 election fraud one, and it's not widely called that in reliable sources and is already discussed in the lead. The other ones such as birtherism, Qanon, etc. simply aren't that notable and the mini section discussing Trump's conspiracy theory activity is rather small. Also using the term "conspiracy theorist" should be avoided, even in the RS offered by FormalDude below the headlines don't indicate Trump as a "conspiracy theorist" rather that he promotes some conspiracy theories. Overall, it appears mentioning any conspiracy theory activity would be WP:UNDUE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  Frankly, there's plenty of reliable sources that spell out that Trump is a "conspiracy theorist" literally verbatim. I'm tired, I'm not going to list them all right now. Do a Google search before you just skim the headlines of sources from one other particpant's comment and assume you have the whole picture. ––FormalDude talk 02:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure some might use that verbatim to describe Trump, but it's not widely enough to use that verism in the lead. Also the lead is long and Trumps conspiracy theory promotion beyond his attempt to overturn the election is not very notable to his presidency or career. The lead, which is already really long for an article, should only explain the very important points, and conspiracy theory promotion is not one of them. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory promotion most certainly is one of the very important points, it has an entire subsection of the article devoted to it and a whole article (List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump) that is a split off. ––FormalDude talk 02:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• No as none of the listed sources call Trump a conspiracy theorist. I would direct the OP to the consensus list #49. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• No - 'cause we truly don't know if he actually believed those theories or if he only made them up, with hopes of benefiting himself. GoodDay (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes I wouldn't be opposed to "supporter of conspiracy theories" if we want slightly softer language. But the sourcing for some sort of language to that effect is so strong it's inarguable. That Trump promotes conspiracy theories has overwhelming amounts of reliable sourcing behind it, and I very much dispute that "it's not what he's mainly known for" at this point. It wasn't in the 80s and 90s but it surely is one of the things he's known for now. Loki (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• No The idea of a 'conspiracy' is highly subjective and opinionated, and a term most often used by partisans to label anything they don't agree with, and as a way of avoiding having to actually explain themselves in terms of facts. Keep lede neutral and honest. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Soft yes. He has been called that explicitly here, here, and here to name a few. He has publicly pushed the "fraudulent" election conspiracy as a primary talking point month after month. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• No – per Jack Upland. It's non-neutral terminology, and it's a relatively clear-cut case of an inappropriate MOS:LABEL – it's a fact he's promoted conspiracy theories, but "conspiracy theorist" isn't frequently described as his primary occupation. We'd need multiple strong sources to justify such language, per BLP tone and due weight. Jr8825 • Talk 19:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  We don't have to describe his primary occupation as being a "conspiracy theorist" and I don't think anyone is suggesting that. I think there are sufficient strong sources to support at the very least including in the lead that Trump has promoted conspiracy theories. The body talks about it in further detail, so to that extent, a single mention in the lead seems very justified. ––FormalDude talk 23:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• No Subjective and value/virtue-laden label, more hobby than job, not done for other celebrities who share alternative social media, breaks the Rule of Three, part of a grand political scheme and requires mild synthesis ("theories" to "theorist") for best results. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• And if this is code for "claimed electoral fraud", that's already in the lead, in plain English. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• False choice The question here is posed improperly. The opposite of "call him a conspiracy theorist" is "don't call him a conspiracy theorist". (Which is what I favor: don't call him a conspiracy theorist.) The alternate choice given here, whether he subscribes to "fringe beliefs and falsehoods," is not a valid opposite; it's a entirely different question. One is about what he says and promotes; the other is about what he believes. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, you are totally right. I changed the proposal early on for clarification and forget to change that part. I've clarified the wording to fix this. ––FormalDude talk 23:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks. So my response to the RfC question is now No. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• No - Not what he is primarily known for. He definitely engaged in peddling conspiracy theories, but then again so did George W. Bush and I don't think anyone would take seriously such a proposal for his page. I'm reiterating what was said above, I have no problem with his involvement with conspiracy theories being mentioned in the lede, but describing him as a "conspiracy theorists" isn't gonna fly. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion 2

• What do multiple reliable independent sources say, that is not contradicted by other multiple reliable independent sources? Station1 (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • From my analysis, they tend to say "conspiracy theory":

  1. "24 outlandish conspiracy theories Donald Trump has floated over the years" Business Insider, 2019.
  2. "President Trump loves conspiracy theories. Has he ever been right?" Washington Post, 2019.
  3. "Trump accuses Cruz's father of helping JFK's assassin" Politico, 2016.
  4. "Trump praises QAnon conspiracists, appreciates support" AP News, 2020.
  5. "Fact-checking the dangerous bin Laden conspiracy theory that Trump touted" CNN, 2020.
  6. "Trump again boosts a baseless conspiracy theory, this one about Jeffrey Epstein" Vox, 2019.
  7. "Trump ramps up Twitter push on unfounded Scarborough conspiracy theory" The Hill, 2020.
  8. "Trump praised QAnon during meeting about keeping the Senate" CNN, 2020.
  9. "Tracking QAnon: how Trump turned conspiracy-theory research upside down" Nature (journal), 2021.
  10. "Trump Repeatedly Boosts QAnon On His Way Out The Door" Forbes, 2020.

––FormalDude talk 16:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• I've reworded this RfC to be more narrowly construed and specific about adding "conspiracy theorist" to the lede, as it was mentioned to me that consensus #49 is a recent consensus to include the "false and misleading statements" text. Pinging those who've already participated: @Station1, @BSMRD ––FormalDude talk 18:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  I would direct Mr Ernie to my prior acknowledgement of consensus list #49. ––FormalDude talk 02:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - is this RFC saying "conspiracy theorist" should be placed in the lead sentence (as in the 1st sentence in the whole article) or somewhere in the lead body paragraphs? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Iamreallygoodatcheckers: Somewhere in the lede body paragraphs, i.e. anywhere in the lede section. Could be the first sentence, could be the last. ––FormalDude talk 00:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Why is there no Rfc tag? GoodDay (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• FormalDude, I don't know if this is a requirement for RfCs or whether you left it off intentionally but the discussion won't be announced as an RfC without the RfC template. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Nobody knows whether any conspiracy theorist believes what they say. That's unknown for all the individuals Wikipedia describes as conspiracy theorists. What matters is what's documented in Reliable Sources and whether it is significant to the individual's life, work, actions, and public message. At least since his front-page Obama Birther campaign, which won Trump wide support among the minority of Americans who considered Obama illegitimate, Trump has deftly spun conspiracy theories into his public and political messaging. Since around mid-2020, when it became obvious he would lose the presidency, the core of his message and the basis of his ongoing control of the Republican Party, has been his conspiracy theories about everything from Coronavirus to Biden/Ukraine to Election Fraud and the Steal. What, if anything, he believes is not the issue. The issue is what he says and its role in his public image and political success. SPECIFICO talk 18:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC) @Gwillhickers: Conspiracy theory is not used by partisans. It's how the mainstream Reliable Sources describe Trump's political narratives. Have you read the sources about this topic? Do you believe Obama was born in Kenya, the 2020 election was stolen from Trump? Etc. etc. Have you reviewed sources, or are you simply stating a general personal opinion based on nothing specific to Trump's narratives? For starters, there are several sources listed above in this subsection. SPECIFICO talk 18:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy pushers, have differing motives. Some actually believe what they're pushing while others don't, but push it anyways to achieve what they want. At best, Trump is a trickster. Now, if you wanna talk about Sidney Powell? she's spooky. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: — Nonsense. The term is used constantly in a partisan capacity. Unless a source can nail down the idea that something is actually a 'conspiracy theory' they are only passing on an opinion and is hardly reliable. In any case, WP should not pass on opinion as fact. Any opinion taken from e.g. a news article or any other so called "reliable" source should be presented as such. To say anyone is promoting a "conspiracy" without backing it up with established facts is less than neutral and less than honest. Also, this is not the forum to discuss Obama's birthplace, or any other contentious subject. WP is not the place to pass on what the news says as fact. We can say Trump has been accused by a given "reliable" source for promoting a conspiracy, or that he is advocating what he believes to be true, but that is all. Also, please don't speak on behalf of all "mainstream reliable sources". At this late date, many people on the right, center and left have grave reservations about the reliability of today's news sources, and rightly so. Keep the lede neutral please. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gwillickers: Excuse me, I should have been more clear. "Conspiracy theorist" is not used only by partisans. The issue is only whether mainstream RS use it to describe Trump. It's quite clear that they do. Just so that we can understand where you're coming from, do you believe that the mainstream media, political analysts, and academics who have described Trump that way are doing so as partisans? SPECIFICO talk 20:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: Sorry I botched the ping above. You appear to be saying Wikipedia should not follow the WEIGHT of mainstream Reliable Sources, because you believe they are not neutal or not really reliable. Is that your view? If so, it's not in line with WP policies and your opinion really does not help us resolve this editorial question. SPECIFICO talk 22:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say terms like "conspiracy theorist" are "only" used by partisans, but from what I've seen, it too often is. That's all. It's not a matter of what I believe. If a source makes a clam, of any sort, and can not substantiate it beyond a shadow of a doubt with established facts, then it remains an opinion. As such, any opinionated statement, from any source, should be presented as such. e.g.ABC believes this -- Fox believes that. At this point we seem to be having an opinion war. I will abide by the consensus of this RfC and leave it at that. I doubt our conversation is going to change anyone's mind. If you prefer to believe that claims about people advocating 'conspiracy theories' and such are never made in a partisan capacity that is your privilege. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• RFC updated: I have slightly clarified the wording on the RfC to specify that a yes vote is in favor of "conspiracy theory" and a no vote is against "conspiracy theory". ––FormalDude talk 23:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I can’t answer yes or no (no on the label, yes on promoting). IMO there’s a difference between proposing and promoting conspiracy theories. By definition, a conspiracy theorist is "a person who proposes or believes in a conspiracy theory." Propose and promote aren’t synonyms. I’m not aware of any sources stating that any of the theories Trump promoted originated with him or that he believes them. Trump doesn’t invent, he picks up stuff on Fox or talks to Hannity, Bannon, et al. He had the Facebook and Twitter bullhorns to promote the falsehoods and conspiracy theories directly. Steve Bannon, Peter Schweizer, Alex Jones, Roger Stone, Marjorie Taylor Greene do both but only Jones and Greene got labelled conspiracy theorists on WP. My guess is that when you peddle lies in books and on film and call them documentaries (and when reputable news media fall for it, as with Clinton Cash, for example), you retain an aura of respectability and don’t come off as a raving lunatic like Jones ranting on video/radio or Greene pursuing fellow members of Congress and shouting through their mail slots. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

What would you like me to do about it? ––FormalDude talk 21:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude and Space4Time3Continuum2x: Taking account of Space's comment and several of the comments and !votes above, I suggest IAR -- withdraw or close this RfC with no decision and start fresh with an RfC with the two simple choices (A) to say in the lead that he promotes conspiracy theories or (B) not to say in the lead that he promotes conspiracy theories. This would address several editors' concerns and be similar in form and substance to existing article body content. SPECIFICO talk 01:01, 10 September 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.

RfC about adding "politician" to lead of Donald Trump

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Putting aside the personal opinions and concentrating on the most convincing arguments, what I see is that:

1. There are WP:RS provided to support that Trump is, some way or another, "a politician"
2. There is a dispute whether this is redundant with him being identified as a former president ("All presidents are politicians")
3. The majority of editors involved consider that this is not redundant, that there is precedent for mentioning this, and that this forms a significant enough part of Trump's notability (including before and after his presidency)

Given that point 2. seems like a legitimate case where reasonable editors could disagree, and that 1 and 3 appear to be enough justification for including this information in light of sourcing and neutrality requirements, based on more than just editor opinion, I must conclude that, yes, there is consensus for including this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Should "politician" be added to the first sentence of the lead which currently lists "media personality and businessman"? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes, obviously. That's now the main thing he's known for. Loki (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• No I am unsure he is a politician, in fact he makes much of the fact he is not one. If he denies it we can't really say he is unless it is widely said in RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The fact that he is the former president makes this argument quite absurd to me; if we had an article about a famous Texan, we would not require separate RSes to say that the subject is also a famous American. As for his denials, this is prime WP:MANDY territory. Loki (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I am talking about what he has done as a professional. I do not agree he is a professional politician. As I said he himself had denied it. So yes if a famous Texan said "I am not a American" we would need rs to say they were. It is only Mandy if it is something RS have disagreed with.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

"Trump is a politician famous for following his “gut” to some odd and sketchy places." Michael Gerson, The Washington Post, 2018. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I hope you realize the thing you're saying is completely absurd. We'd really need separate sources to call a Texan an American if they denied being American? Really? That's really where you're placing your line? Loki (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, because where a person lives or where they were born does not determine their nationality. That is why we need RS to do so, if they deny it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Trump is a native New Yorker whether he denies it or not. We don't need to cite that the WP:SKYISBLUE. And there are plenty of citations that confirm that the former POTUS is a politician what are we even doing here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

"To his supporters, Trump is a politician who doesn’t sound like one." Emily Flitter, Reuters, 2016. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

So yes if a famous Texan said "I am not a American" we would need rs to say they were. this is simply absurd. Super Ψ Dro 20:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• No I see lots of Original Research arguments in favor of "politician" but I've never seen Trump call himself a politician -- quite the opposite. And I can't recall widespread RS calling him a politician, again quite the opposite. And if we want to get into the realm of interpretation and OR, there's plenty to suggest his prominence and his electoral success were due to extra-political efforts, "no collusion" and "no conspiracy" notwithstanding. BTW, I don't see this RfC is necessary, except to prevent a long string of complaints based on Levivich's objection above. SPECIFICO talk 15:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)00:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't know you were in the "if he says he isn't, then he isn't" camp. If Donald Trump's fans behold a guy who isn't a politician, who is he to complain? He'll just sit there quietly, acting, getting things done. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I'm honestly a bit confused by this take of yours too, @SPECIFICO. I understand if you don't recall RS calling him a politician, but several strong examples have been given in this RfC. ––FormalDude talk 03:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, of course he's a politician. Being extraordinarily bad at something doesn't mean you still are not that thing. He was president of the US; a political position. Therefore, he is a politician. And why anyone is using the argument that 'he hasn't called himself that' blows my mind. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT HE THINKS. IT MATTERS WHAT WE CAN CITE. FULL STOP. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• No. Here's why: Wikipedia articles for presidents with no political experience tend not to call them politicians based on being president. For military leaders that became presidents, such as Dwight D. Eisenhower and Ulysses S. Grant, they are not called politicians. Trump was a businessman that was elected president, therefore is technically a politician, but for the purposes of summarizing someone's legacy, it's not appropriate to use that label, as laid out by the other examples, which should serve as precedent. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes He famously wasn't before running the first time, then cemented his place as the most famous politician on Earth while running the second time. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, no, he is not a "career politician". I refuse to believe "politician" is a synonym for that kind in particular. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yes Oxford defines politician (pol·i·ti·cian, /ˌpäləˈtiSHən/) as "a person who is professionally involved in politics, especially as a holder of or a candidate for an elected office." He has run for the highest office in the land, twice (thrice if you count 2000). He held that office for four years. We have a page called Political career of Donald Trump. How in the world is he not a politician? Because he says he's not? WP:MANDY applies, given his specific public persona. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

He isn't a politician professionally. He's a buisnessman professionally. Holding office once for four years isn't a career in any sense of the word. Honestly this definition is more of a case for exclusion Anon0098 (talk) 00:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

He first ran for this office about 20 years ago. I think that counts... Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 05:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, because he is one. Super Ψ Dro 20:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• No, just because he is a politician does not mean we need to include the word. We already call him the president; it is redundant to call him a politician when he has neither held nor run for any other office. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• No A politician is not just anyone who runs for an elected office, but rather someone who does it professionally. Dwight D. Eisenhower and Ulysses S. Grant are not referred to as politicians, because they did not make a career of politics, and neither has Trump. Though he is politically involved currently, and has ran for president a few times, that does not make him a politician, in the same way that Lyndon LaRouche is not a politician but rather a political activist. Trump has never ran for any office outside of President and only expressed any interest in politics late in life. Just because he won doesn't make him more of a politician. Additionally, though it doesn't count for too much (see the ever-popular WP:MANDY), Trump's own protestations against being called a politician should at least be considered. BSMRD (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

BSMRD Do you support adding "political activist" to the first sentence? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x I wouldn't be opposed, but I more provided that as an example that not everyone politically involved (nor everyone who has ran for office) is a politician by default. Personally I think President/Former President is sufficient, though political activism could be used to describe his post presidential rallies. BSMRD (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• No until he holds another office. We already say he was the president. It would be unnecessarily reiterating Anon0098 (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• No We already say he was President. This describes essentially the same thing but is more specific and therefore better. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• No per previous comments about how other presidents with no previous political experience are referred to in their respective articles. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - of course he is a politician, it's not required that he be a politician professionally or a career politician, to be precise, he is a celebrity politician, just like Al Franken, Jesse Ventura, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sonny Bono, and a slew of others. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, absolutely, to fit the format of other presidents. Mover of molehills (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, per WP:BLUE - and also the wealth of reliable sources describing him as such, some of which have been provided here already. BilledMammal (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. Trump became a politician as soon as he declared his candidacy for president. If he hadn't been a "politician" during his candidacy, he certainly became one when he won his election. It is glaringly obvious that if Donald Trump was never a businessman, he would meet WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 02:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. This was a tough one for me, I think @SPECIFICO: makes a compelling argument. Trump isn't exactly described as a "politician" in sources enough to normally place the term in the lead, but I have done some reasoning to decide if the term is appropriate. I don't see this as an WP:OR or WP:UNDUE issue because using the word "politician" really is just a compression of his political activities overall into one word. It's not WP:OR or WP:UNDUE because all we're really doing is taking what reliable sources say and finding a word in English that can describe his political activities, which clearly are notable enough for a lead mention under WP:UNDUE, into one word in the lead, there's nothing original there or inferences beyond what RS is clear about. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Yes. I genuinely can't imagine a more clear cut case of someone being a politician, both by definition and description in WP:RS. I must emphasis this objective fact: Trump is a career politician, someone who has devoted a large portion of their life to politics. He has been primarily a politician for the entire 21st century. Just look at his multiple political campaigns dating back to the 1990s at Political career of Donald Trump. There is no questioning that he is a politician, and anyone who doesn't understand that should have zero consideration given to their comments here. The argument to not call him a politician is profoundly weak and the sets a highly concerning precedent that whatever a person calls themselves is what goes, regardless of what reliable sources call them, and regardless of their actions as represented in reliable sources. If we don't call him a politician in the lede, we are woefully misinforming our readers, both on Donald Trump, and on who qualifies as a politician in general. ––FormalDude talk 04:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Citing that article to put politician up top is like citing the Racial Views article to write "racist president". Not a good argument. SPECIFICO talk 14:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  @SPECIFICO: No... it would be like citing Racial views of Donald Trump in order to write that Trump has racial views. ––FormalDude talk 19:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO:, it is kind of like citing the racial views article to call him "racist president", but his racial views aren't notable enough to be in the lead. His political career is. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I was trying to make the following point: Material that is DUE and well-sourced for one of the subsidiary articles is not necessarily DUE WEIGHT for the first sentence or two of the lead of the main article. That refutes Dude's point. I don't think yours needs any further response. SPECIFICO talk 21:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

My point is that not calling him a politician in the lede lends undue weight to Trump and his follower's personal preference of not labeling him a politician. We would be misinforming our readers on a vital part of Trump's character: the fact that he is a career politician. ––FormalDude talk 21:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Believe me, we got your point the first time. It is based on a false opinion. Mainstream does not view him as a career politician. Also, please be mindful of WP :BLUDGEON. SPECIFICO talk 22:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Reality views him as a career politician. And don't reply to my comments if you don't want me to respond. ––FormalDude talk 22:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• No Are there any sources stating Donald Trump is a politician? From what I can tell, the references to Donald Trump being a politician date to his time as a political officeholder between 2017 and 2021. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Onetwothreeip: So what, now he's all of a sudden no longer a politician just because he left office less than a year ago? ––FormalDude talk 04:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  @FormalDude: Exactly, as of 20 January 2021. Unless strong sources show otherwise. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  How ridiculous. ––FormalDude talk 05:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  From this exchange, observers should infer there are not significant sources describing the subject as a politician in his post-presidency, and is at most a former politician. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  I find it quite humorous you have so little confidence in your point being interpreted correctly that you have to tell observers what they should infer from your words. ––FormalDude talk 05:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  Not cool to change your edit after my reply. Here's strong sources that show otherwise:

  • Donald Trump is a rare breed of politician July 2021, Brookings [24]
  • Trump is 'wounded, old politician' May 2021, WMUR [25]
  • Time to see Trump as a normal politician March 2021, Salon [26]
  • Cuomo, Trump and Other Politicians Accused of Mistreating Women August 2021, NYT [27]

  And this is not to mention the many political actions he's taken, such as holding rallies, which are clearly associable with the word "politician". ––FormalDude talk 05:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  You forfeited the courtesy when you called my justified position ridiculous without explanation, and I only added in my subsequent edit what I had already stated previously, that I could be persuaded with reliable sources. I will review what you have provided. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  InedibleHulk provided a few more in the discussion, below. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  It appears the sources InedibleHulk provided all date to when Trump was president or presidential candidate. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  @FormalDude: I've looked at the first three sources, but not the New York Times article as there is a paywall. These are relatively low-quality sources, particularly from Brookings and WMUR, and not sufficient to establish that Donald Trump is currently known as a politician to any significant degree. The Salon article is clearly an opinion expressing that Trump should be considered a politician, rather than assessing what he is currently considered to be. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Onetwothreeip: You can use the Wayback Machine to get around paywalls: [28].

  I strongly disagree with your assessment of these sources as low quality. The Salon article may be an opinion piece, but it is not expressing that Trump should be considered a politician, it is expressing that Trump is a mainstream establishment figure. What it's about is not why I referenced it though. I referenced it because it calls Trump explicitly a politician in multiple ways, so it clearly shows he's seen as one. ––FormalDude talk 04:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. There is no degree proclaiming anyone to be a politician, and the hurdles for running for any political office aren’t high. He ran twice and made noises about running before two other presidential elections. When he was voted out of office, Trump did not retire to co-authoring his memoirs of "best president ever" or fundraising for a presidential library. Instead, seven months after his term ended, he still hasn’t acknowledged that he is legitimately no longer president. He’s running two PACs, collecting more than $100 million since the 2020 election, and spending the money on campaigning/public appearances or whatever those are. He’s still considered to be the leader of the GOP, and GOP officials have to make regular pilgrimages to his court at Mar-a-Lago or Bedminster and spend money there to stay in his good graces. GOP politicians wanting to run for any kind of political office have to adhere to his political agenda and obtain his endorsement because the GOP believes that otherwise they have no chance to win the party nomination. Also, Trump keeps hinting at running again in 2024. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• The PACs are widely described as tax and fundraising dodges to pay his legal defense costs. SPECIFICO talk 17:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• No for several reasons:
  1. The article body doesn't call him a politician (the one line saying he is one of the richest politicians is cited to two sources neither of which call him a politician).
  2. RSes by and large do not refer to him as a politician
  3. RSes do not refer to him as a politician in the present tense (maybe he was one while President but is he still one?)
  4. Most importantly, though: if holding the office of President for one term makes you a politician, then every president is a politician, and the word "politician" adds nothing that isn't already said by "president" and thus is redundant. If, on the other hand, one must do something beyond merely holding the presidency to be a politician (like hold multiple offices), then whatever that "something" is, Trump hasn't done it, and thus is not and was never a politician. In other words, the only way in which he is a politician is that he was a president, so we don't need to say both "president" and "politician". Levivich 16:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  Re item 1: It's a link to List of richest American politicians. One of the two cites is an article about the net worth of all presidents which doesn't refer to any of them as a politician. The other one is the Forbes list of billionaires, no clue whether they mention any politicians. The article bodies of Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan don't call them politicians, either. In George H.W. Bush, the body mentions politician once, in a quote (his image shifted from "conquering hero" to "politician befuddled by economic matters". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  Trump shouldn't be on the list of "richest politicians" (not sure if that list is even notable as a list), and those other articles shouldn't be describing those presidents as "an American politician" in the leads, either. But none of those WP:OSE arguments are relevant here. At least in the case of those other presidents, they've held multiple offices, so if we define "politician" as "held multiple offices" (not just president), then that's a logical reason for calling those other presidents "politicians" but not Trump. Levivich 18:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  I am surprised nobody's removed that Forbes bit after it was reinstated for no valid reason. SPECIFICO talk 18:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, obviously; he's one of the most famous politicians, having held America's top political office, and he's so described by myriad RS, as FormalDude and Kolya have laid out. -sche (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral, since the US presidency is a political office, then at the very least he was a politician, from Jan 20, 2017 to Jan 20, 2021. Yet, with that reasoning, aren't all US presidents & vice presidents, politicians? and thus the addition is redundant? GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  He has been described as a politician by reliable sources as far back as 1999 and as recently as this month. ––FormalDude talk 23:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Obviously yes and I'm amazed this question is even being asked. Being president makes you a politican. — Czello 20:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  He hasn't been president for some time now. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

  He technically hasn't been a media personality for even longer, but that's still in the lead. — Czello 21:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• YES cause, so Wikipedia has decided to side with the "I am NOT a politician, I am NEW" side with someone who first ran for president in the early 2000s? K cool bro. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 05:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. He is clearly a politician as he was a candidate for U.S. President twice and was elected for four years. Under this criteria, I believe he should have "politician" listed in the first sentence of the lead. Jurisdicta (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• No per logic of BSMRD above, that people who come to the presidency from non-political fields such as Eisenhower or Ullyses Grant are NOT politicians if the presidency is there only office (failed candidacies don't count). One book does not an author make (even if your book is incredibly famous) and one public office does not make one a politician. Besides, it is redundant since the sentence states clearly that he was nth President and the Sky-is-blue arguments work both ways, it doesn't need saying. Considering the number of mentions he has had in RS, the number referring to him as a politician is miniscule AFAI can see. Whether politician is a compliment or an insult seems irrelevant, as is any antidote-to-politics public image! Pincrete (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Really, Anne Frank's diary does not make her an author, and therefore Trump's 4-year stint as the most powerful politician on earth does not make him a politician? Do you also have statistics on how many other persons now or formerly engaged in political and politics-adjacent activities are regularly referred to as "politician" or "the politician" in RS, rather than "McConnell" or "senator"? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Well if I don't have such statistics using 'politician' for persons now or formerly engaged in political and politics-adjacent activities, presumably you don't either, so we are both exercising judgement as to how to clearly, concisely render information. Why do we need the term if you think it is self-evident, since we say immediately "nth President of US". Pincrete (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Failed candidacies don't count? Politician states that "A politician is a person active in party politics, or a person holding or seeking an elected seat in government" (emphasis mine). His multiple runs and campaigns clearly are the activities of a politician, regardless of the outcome. Retswerb (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yes; he is routinely described as such in reliable sources, and it is now his primary source of notability. Example sources include eg. [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]. Note that several of these sources are from 2021. This is unsurprising; he ran for office repeatedly over the course of 20 years, and remains heavily active as a politician today - the argument people seem to be making, above, that he retired from politics and therefore ceased to be a politician the moment he lost the 2020 election, is simply not reflected in how the sources treat him. He ran as an outsider (as many politicians do), but his numerous runs for office and the extensive academic coverage of him as a politician show how his career and identity as a politician remains a central part of his biography; there is simply no indication in the sources that that major aspect of his life suddenly ceased to matter after he lost in 2020. --Aquillion (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - Based on Wikipedia's own definition of a politician; "Broadly speaking, a "politician" can be anyone who seeks to achieve political power in the government." and "Politicians are people who are politically active, especially in party politics." This is in line with how others define what a politician is, and certainly applies to both Trump's presidency and his post-president activities. - Aoidh (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - By Aquillion's logic (he ran for office several times), and by the definition of politician Aoidh asserted. Additionally, Trump's most significant contributions to the world (I couldn't think of a better way to phrase this) are related to his success in politics. He was hardly a nonentity before his participation, but if we want to accurately portray him in a way that properly emphasizes how he affected the world, regardless of what he identifies as personally, we should call him a politician. IDontHaveAnAccountYet (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - For greater fairness, I would like to invite anybody to provide quality sources that indicate Donald Trump is currently considered to be a politician, from after January 2021. I have assessed based on what has been provided to me that the sources do not indicate this, but it is fair to let those who are advocating the position that Donald Trump is a politician to prove this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

1. Sources calling him a politician are not the only thing that matters. His political actions matter as well. Reliable sources show he is the top Republican candidate for President in 2024, and continues to hold political rallies.

2. It's brave of you to write off these quality reliable sources that show Trump is currently considered to be a politician:

• Donald Trump is a rare breed of politician July 2021, Brookings [37]
• Trump is 'wounded, old politician' May 2021, WMUR [38]
• Time to see Trump as a normal politician March 2021, Salon [39]
• Cuomo, Trump and Other Politicians Accused of Mistreating Women August 2021, NYT [40]

––FormalDude talk 04:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I've already dismissed those above. Please don't duplicate the discussion and keep your comments in that thread. This is for other editors who feel the position to label the subject as a politician has a strong basis in current sources. I've looked at the first three sources, but not the New York Times article as there is a paywall. These are relatively low-quality sources, particularly from Brookings and WMUR, and not sufficient to establish that Donald Trump is currently known as a politician to any significant degree. The Salon article is clearly an opinion expressing that Trump should be considered a politician, rather than assessing what he is currently considered to be. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

As I've explained already, your assessment of the sources was not accurate and your dismissal of them was flippant. If you're going to bring up the sources after January 2021 that consider Trump to be a politician, I'm going to list the ones I've found that exist, for the convenience of other editors. ––FormalDude talk 02:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• No - of course Trump is a politician, but, with the exception of a several-month presidential campaign in 2000, his entire political career consists of a successful run for U.S. president in 2016, then a re-election campaign in 2020. Thus, his status as a politician is already covered by "U.S. president" in the lead sentence, and would be redundant. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes If you run for and hold political office, you are by definition a politician. (Besides the fact that Trump embodies "politician" whether he claims to be one or not.) So what if it may be redundant of President? Tchouppy (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, he certainly hasn’t retired from politics... He still holds political rallies, pretty easy to tell apart from a get together thrown by a non-politician. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
• No, Adding the label "politician" wouldn't add any information about Trump that is already covered by us saying he served as president. --Distelfinck (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, No doubt about it, that's what he is most known for. Sea Ane (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, I would prefer 'an American businessman and former politician" since most people today do not know him for his past hosting of the Apprentice, but for his presidency, while he is currently only a businessman. Bill Williams (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Do sources say that he is currently a businessman? I think the kids are continuing to run Trump Org. and Donald Sr. is a retiree in Florida. SPECIFICO talk 15:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are proposing. If his lead wont say businessman, as you claim he isn't one, and he obviously isn't a media personality anymore, with his bans across social media and no longer hosting the Apprentice, and of course you say he isn't a politician, then what will the lead say? "Donald Trump is an American who served as President...?" Tell me which of the 45 other presidents' article that says that. Bill Williams (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Tyler, Polk, Pierce, Andrew Johnson, Garfield, McKinley, Harding, Lyndon B. Johnson, Nixon, as I pointed out in the "Discussion" below (the second one of the bullet points). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. Being president of the United States makes you a politician. It's really as simple as that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. I just realized that although I participated in the discussion immediately above this one, I hadn't weighed in on the RfC. (How many times do we have to go through this?) The arguments that he is not a politician, or shouldn't be described as one in the lead sentence, are completely unconvincing. The fact that he claims he isn't one - by which he means, he's not one in the derogatory sense the term is sometimes used - is irrelevant. This is the lead sentence, and it explains what the person IS, and in particular what occupations they are best known for. If he wasn't primarily a politician in the past, he certainly is one now. It's probably the best known feature of his identity now. Just look at how he spends his time now: holding rallies, fundraising, talking about running again, meeting with advisors, commenting on public events - all the things that politicians do. And check out other "non-politicians" who have held elective office: Jesse Ventura, Arnold Schwartzenegger, Al Franken - each of them held office just once, after a lifetime of other careers, and each of them is described in the lead sentence as a politician (along with the other stuff they did). -- MelanieN (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable, but in WP terms, the argument is OR. And as several editors have said, if its obvious by definition why must it be stated? SPECIFICO talk 20:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. He is the very definition of a politician. He was the most powerful politician of the period 2016–2021, and is arguably the leader of one of America's dominant parties. The page needs to be written for the long-term and to an audience that may not be familiar with Trump. I fail to understand the rationales to omit that that he's a politician. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. Sensible and well-sourced description. Neutrality^talk 00:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• Politician and conspiracy theorist Changed my view. But it should be both together because thats his political M.O. Recent 2021 coverage portays a politicia that control the GOP, which has adopted his conspiracy theories as the basis of its agenda. Post election content will need enhancement. SPECIFICO talk 00:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• No. Even as a president he wasn't a politician, and the sources just don't really describe him like that. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• No since the argument that he is a politician is that he served as president of the United States, saying he is a former president AND politician is unnecessary, redundant and confusing. Readers would assume he held other offices. It's a tendentious rebuttal to Trump's claim that he is not a politician. If editors want to provide a source that criticizes Trump's claim, fine, but we shouldn't get involved in the argument. Furthermore, per Due and undue weight, we should not emphasize descriptions not normally used in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

  Politician is very much a description normally used in reliable sources. ––FormalDude talk 14:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, most certainly. Well sourced in plenty of RS and absolutely relevant, this is the thing for which he will be remembered. Retswerb (talk) 07:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, but only if it's "politician" with quotes. But seriously, no per Drmies. –Fredddie™ 05:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

I see no statement in the article text calling Trump a politician. The only use of the word wrt Trump is a primary sourced bit about the Forbes wealth rankings. As a matter of fact, we removed that Forbes bit from the infobox as an unreliable source with no objective basis for their evaluation of Trump's wealth. I'll remove it from the article per that decision. See talk archives, please. SPECIFICO talk 18:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you narrow down "talk archives" a bit? I don't remember that discussion or the Forbes bit. BTW, you'd also have to remove at least four categories. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

"Acosta is a reporter. Trump is a politician." John Kass, Chicago Tribune, 2018. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

"It pays to remember Trump is a politician who doesn’t care about consequences." Katharine Murphy, The Guardian, 2020. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

"In many ways, Trump is a politician with counter-liberal instincts operating within a liberal society, who uses the rhetorical techniques of authoritarian regimes." Stephen Collinson, CNN, 2017 (emphasis mine). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

"He says he's not a politician, but he is." Ben Carson, man defeated by Trump via politics, 2016. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, if you run for political office, you are by definition a politician. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• See previous discussion: How is he not considered a politician? Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: I think it's a matter of DUE WEIGHT and OR. In the Britannica.com article, the word does not appear. Even if it were obvious or a tautology that the Pres. of US is a "politician", we could say by the same logic that he's a sighted male or any of hundreds of other skyblue observations. I am generally uncomfortable with labels in BLPs and have opposed them except where they are impeccably DUE sourced and clearly defined. "Politican" is a broad category. As has been argued by others, we don't call Pres. Grant or Pres. Ike a "politician" as an up-top defining label. I can't see what it adds to the article, and it is not widely sourced, various opinion pieces notwithstanding. Not widely. Many other tags are widely sourced and apparently are considered defining characteristics by mainstream narratives. Why add something not discussed in the article text with top placement in the lead opening? SPECIFICO talk

You can't just say "various opinion pieces notwithstanding" to make a widely sourced declaration of fact seem less widely sourced. Those exact same outlets are why our lead basically calls him a lying racist molester (but in far more words), and Britannica's doesn't. If you seriously can't see his politician work discussed in the body, you're blind or purposely obstinate. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep personal remarks off article talk pages. SPECIFICO talk 23:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

What, obstinate? Or blind? In either case, I made the eight subsections of his first political campaign more obvious, for everyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

If the Encyclopedia Britannica article influenced your vote, it shouldn't have. I looked at every one of their articles on U.S. presidents between now and WWII. The only one they call a politician is George H. W. Bush, although many of the others had been vice president, state governors, members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, before being elected president. Additionally, Obama has an undergraduate degree in political science, and Nixon pretty much called himself a politician. They quote him saying that his wife Pat, "unlike the wives of so many Democratic politicians, did not own a fur coat but only 'a respectable Republican cloth coat.'" Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, I just brushed up on Eisenhower, and he has the stronger case for "statesman". His article describes a man who reluctantly ran, more out of a sense of duty than some narcissistic or megalomaniacal drive. Trump, on the other hand, descended a golden staircase of his own volition, then gave more TV interviews than any candidate ever has. That guy wanted to get votes, even if it meant appealing to people nobody else could or wanted to. And he got almost 140 million votes total, which if not a record for an American politician, certainly makes him better among them than he was in the real estate or TV star rankings. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, Anon0098, Adoring nanny, commenting on your argument that it’s understood that U.S. presidents are politicians and therefore it does not need to be said that Trump is a politician. This doesn’t fall under WP:SKYBLUE, its’s WP:PARIS or WP:POPE. Most people will think of the capital of France and the Pope in Rome, respectively, when Paris or the Pope is mentioned. The people in Paris, Texas and members of the Greek Orthodox or Coptic Orthodox churches, respectively, may not. In the U.S., the president is both the head of state and the head of government. In List of current heads of state and government the president is head of state only, with limited, mostly ceremonial functions. Some of them are politicians, like Sauli Niinistö, some of them are not, like Katerina Sakellaropoulou. Wikipedia, and in particular the English Wikipedia, is a global encyclopedia. We should mention what is not necessarily understood globally. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Just because a statement is true, it does not follow that we should say it in the first sentence. Among other things, Trump is white, heterosexual, white-haired, thrice-married, a father, a grandfather, a baby boomer, a husband, a resident of Florida, a former resident of New York, a Republican, a former Democrat, 75 years old, and a COVID-19 survivor. Also he can see, hear, talk, walk, feel, eat, drink, and poop. The first sentence of the lead doesn't say any of them. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I think you know this major difference, but for the record, no true politician is defined by any of those fun facts on Wikipedia. Not Kane (wrestler), not Antonio Inoki, not The Great Sasuke. Very fine media businessmen on both sides of the Pacific. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

White-haired? The stuff on his head looked as blond-ish as ever, although more toupee-ish than usual, six days ago. What, no mention of his other distinguishing features? Two impeachments, serial adultery, six business bankruptcies, filed 1,900 lawsuits ... Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Interesting topic, considering that we don't use politician in the intros of all the US presidents bios or US vice presidents bios. Reckon it's a modern thing. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

It just goes to show that WP is edited by editors with different opinions on what's important in a particular president's bio. We don't know why the editors wrote what they did. Unless editors in this poll were involved in the editing of those articles, their claims that Wikipedia articles for presidents with no political experience tend not to call them politicians based on being president or that Dwight D. Eisenhower and Ulysses S. Grant are not referred to as politicians, because they did not make a career of politics is guesswork not backed by facts. I took a look at the first sentence of every president's bio and recent vice presidents, and here's what I found. If anyone is able to see a general rule or guideline in this, please enlighten me.

• The first sentence of all presidents's bios says that he was the "nth president"
• That's all the first sentence of eight (Tyler, Polk, Pierce, Andrew Johnson, Garfield, McKinley, Harding, Lyndon B. Johnson, Nixon) says
• Fillmore is "the last to be a member of the Whig Party while in the White House"
• Truman "succeed[ed] upon the death ... after serving as" VP .
• Four (Kennedy, Ford, Reagan, Biden) are "politicians"
• Seven (Hayes, Wilson, Hoover, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush, Obama) are "politicians" + something else (e.g., lawyer, businessman)
• Seven (William H. Harrison, Buchanan, Arthur, Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison, Coolidge, Franklin D. Roosevelt) are called "lawyer" first, then "politician"
• Washington is a "political leader" and a "statesman, and military general"
• Three (Jackson, Van Buren, Lincoln) are "lawyers" first, then "soldier, statesman", "statesman", and "statesman", respectively (can't believe I forgot to mention Lincoln Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC))
• Carter is a "philanthropist" and "former politician"
• Six (John Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Theodore Roosevelt) are "statesmen" and s.th. else (e.g. attorney, diplomat, etc.)
• Eisenhower is a "military officer" and "statesman"
• Grant is a "military leader"
• The vice presidents after WWII who didn't also serve as presidents (Barkley, Humphrey, Rockefeller, Mondale, Quayle, Gore, Cheney, Pence) are all called "politician", with the exception of Agnew who "serv[ed] until his resignation in 1973." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for that effort. It saddens me to see other editors routinely make baseless assertions without the slightest basis in fact, sources, or policy -- then repeating them until they become part of the furniture. SPECIFICO talk 12:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• It does seem that all modern presidents (= since Nixon) are referred to as politicians in the lead. That includes Reagan, who started out as an actor (though he had been governor of California before being elected president). Loki (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Disappointed to see that much of the motivation for labelling the subject as a politician comes from sentiments against him, but putting that aside I want to give another opportunity for people to provide current sources describing him as such. If he's not described as such because somehow it's too obvious that he's a politician, then surely it's too obvious for him to be describing like that here as well. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Whenever you've been shown those already, you've dismissed them, so it's not like more would change that. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I have only dismissed ones that don't indicate he is known primarily as a politician, or date to when Trump held a political office. I have to dismiss this one you have shown as well because it's the opinion of another political figure. I've only been shown three sources which I could read, and they didn't meet the criteria, or four counting yours. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

No, you have to dismiss it because otherwise you'd accept it. And if that happened, you'd help your side lose. And if that happened, we'd have to follow the sources. And if we did, Donald Trump would appear to be a politician. Which would be terrible, for some reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I dismiss/reject them based on not being sufficient to demonstrate Donald Trump as being generally considered a politician. It's not asking for much, only description from after he ceased political office not asserting an opinion of him being a certain kind of politician, from a neutral and reliable source. However, it should be known that there is much greater basis for describing the subject as a former politician, ex-politician, or was a politician, or possibly something to do with politics such as an activist or political figure, but these would have to be investigated. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

There is not any basis for sources describing Trump as a politician in the past tense at all. Most sources describe him as a politician at the time of publishing, many of which do so recently.

Your dismissal is not accurate because the sources do not need to sufficiently demonstrate Trump is generally considered a politician. We are looking at reliable secondary sources that call Trump a politician in their own words, for the purpose of determining whether or not "politician" is what a majority of reliable sources refer to him as, compared to opposing labels. As long as the majority of sources label him a politician and not something contradictory, Trump should be called a politician in the lede. ––FormalDude talk 07:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Describing the subject as a politician in past tense is not the matter of this discussion, and I am not advancing a position on that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: Please stop with the WP:NOTGETTINGIT. ––FormalDude talk 03:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Here's a link to the NY Times article. Just pointing out that "was" was rejected in past discussions because he's not dead, and no source I'm aware of has said that he's a former politician, ex-politician, or was a polician but you're welcome to look for any and then present them here for discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for providing this source. Unfortunately, it does not describe Donald Trump as a politician, though it maybe implies he was one. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I honestly can't think of a clearer description of someone as a politician than a New York Times headline that reads "Cuomo, Trump and Other Politicians Accused of Mistreating Women." ––FormalDude talk 23:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The headline actually says Cuomo Stands in a Long Line of Politicians Accused of Mistreating Women, but both are implications. If you can't think of a clearer description of someone as a politician then you aren't thinking at all, because "Trump is a politician" would be a clearer description. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Reuters from this year: "The department, reversing course from the stance it took when Trump was in office, told the Internal Revenue Service to provide the Republican businessman-turned-politician's tax records to congressional investigators - a move he has long fought.”[41]. You’re welcome. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

This is getting better, but still refers to the subject in the past tense. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Its using the past tense to refer to a time after the subject left office, so not just better but exactly what you asked for. The characterization by Reuters that he is a "businessman-turned-politician” is contemporary, they are clearly saying that as of publication thats what he was. Unless you have a more recent article which says otherwise this is case closed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

No, it's using past tense to refer to the time after the subject left business. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

No, its not... Thats not how the english language works. They are clearly saying that Trump was as of the publication of that article a "businessman-turned-politician” aka he was contemporaneously a politician. The article was published well after Trump left office. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

It can apply either to the past or present, or both. It could have said businessman-turned-president, but it would not mean that Donald Trump is still the president. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

It didn’t say that and based on context I don’t think it could have either. Unless you have something that says Donald Trump stopped being a politician its a moot point, no? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I relayed "Trump is a politician" verbatim, five times, from the exact sort of political outlets this article is built on. You excused/dismissed/rejected them with ease! If I were you, I'd tell that horse "businessman-turned-politician" has too many words, doesn't count. Not "getting better", EVERY source is from the past! Wait till the "media personality" RfC. Then we'll see who's flippant, brother! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The source should refer to Donald Trump since after he ceased political office. A source published after January 2021 but referring to events before January 2021 doesn't prove Donald Trump is currently a politician. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Shenanigans! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

If you'd like to beat us fair, clean and square, just bring it! It being a reliable source, signed and dated, announcing his retirement. Or his death. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: Actually, the New York Times uses multiple headlines for SEO purposes (like many media organizations do). See 1,690 Google results for "Cuomo, Trump and Other Politicians Accused of Mistreating Women". ––FormalDude talk 01:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

That may be true, but I can only assess the source from what I see currently available. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

It is true, if you evaluate the proof I just gave. Oh wait, I forgot you can't make concessions for some reason. ––FormalDude talk 05:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any reason to evaluate that claim because it does not progress the discussion, but I would assume you are correct without needing to verify it. For what should be included in the Wikipedia article, we can't use what has been removed from news sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Consensus check

I've noticed the conversation on whether or not to include politician has slowed down, with only 1 vote in the last 3 days. I don't anticipate seeing any more arguments brought forth. Is it time to request a closure? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support call for closure, we've gotten good participation. I count a total of 42 !votes, with 29 in support, 12 opposed (+1 crossed out), and 1 neutral. ––FormalDude talk 03:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yeah but it annoys me that the majority of supports are answering the question "is he a politician" and not answering the question "should he be called a politician in the lead", and not addressing the argument that "president" and "politician" are redundant. Levivich 06:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  I think most of them don't see it at as redundant (some have specified that). You could always ping someone and ask. ––FormalDude talk 08:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The question wasn't "is he a politician" or whether "president" makes "politician" redundant (a few editors voted no because they think so). How is "yes" not an answer to the question Should "politician" be added to the first sentence? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, close it down. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 7 September 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.