Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 150

Archive 145

←

Archive 148

Archive 149

Archive 150

Archive 151

Archive 152

→

Archive 155

Discussion of section references in the lead

Recapitulating what's going on: It's an application of Valjean's idea to eliminate any perceived need for lead cites by providing section references in the lead linking to the section in the body, with the refcites and the wikilinks to other articles, that's summarized by the sentence(s) in the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Bingo! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

This is turning into Wikipedia:WikiProject lead cleanup. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I added section references to another paragraph and added a couple "back to top" buttons to the body to see what other editors think about them. There may be "take it to the sandbox" reactions but how is anyone going to compare these proposed changes with other articles unless they're in an actual and complex article? The "back to top" button works but I had to add it to the heading, so it now shows up in the TOC which wasn't the intention. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Unforeseen consequence: the button in the TOC links to the body section . I deleted them. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah yeah we'll have to tweak the button code a bit to make it work in a heading. Andre🚐 16:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

So far it looks good and is an improvement. Good work! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Contrary to my initial concern on the 12th, it is in fact significantly less clutter than a bunch of citations. It looks remarkably and unexpectedly clean, illustrating one of the reasons to Just Do It. It's a major improvement to the article in multiple ways, and I'm proud of us. Can't wait to see this adopted at other articles after we have a template.

On the subject of the template, I think some consideration of the template name is in order. "Leadref" has worked for purposes of discussion, but these are not refs; rather, they are an alternative to refs in the lead. That said, I can't think of anything better at the moment. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that some other, very unique, name is needed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Technically they are reference links to anchors or targets, if that gives you any ideas. You can also use the {{anchor}} template to make anchors anywhere.

For example...

here Andre🚐 01:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Looks alright I guess. Name it after yourself, WP:SpaceRefs! Zaathras (talk) 01:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some guy who sells spontaneously self-combusting cars has dibs on "SpaceLink". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Lead section anchors. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

They aren't anchors. Consider "lead section links", or LSLs. {{lsl|First impeachment}}. If an editor doesn't use them enough to remember the somewhat cryptic template name, they can simply look at existing examples. There is plenty of precedent for acronym template names, such as {{pb}} for paragraph break or {{tl}} for template link. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 02:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes technically the anchor is the object of the link, and not the link itself. They would be anchor links. Andre🚐 02:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I note belatedly that the actual template names are {{Paragraph break}} and {{Template link}}, respectively, with redirects for the acronyms. So our template name could be "Lead section link", with an "lsl" redirect, but the long form would be rarely or never used. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 02:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Interwiki links, piped links, and section links are all cross-references to targets, i.e., page name/label of another article, section heading in another article, and section heading in the same article, respectively. The items in the TOC are links/hyperlinks to the section and subsection headings in the body. The §-link is another link/hyperlink pointing to a heading in the body. (I hope this explanation — for my benefit as much as yours — is correct.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Since "section links are all cross-references to targets, i.e., page name/label of another article, section heading in another article, and section heading in the same article respectively," can't we call these something like "lead to section links" or "lead section links"? The only difference is that we use a section/pilcrow/paragraph symbol rather than a hashtag, and it's strictly for the local article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Upon further reflection:

If one put a {{section link}} in a lead (which I've seen happen occasionally), that would be a lead section link, no? To avoid that, maybe "lead basis section" or something equally unique?

I actually like "lead basis section"—(1) it better reflects the purpose of the thing, and (2) the lead is formally called the "lead section" (WP:LEAD)—but {{lbs}} already exists. For the redirect, we'd have to use "lbsect" or something (I don't recommend "leadbs" ;)).

Maybe I'm overthinking this a little, as the name is somewhat arbitrary; {{xyz|First impeachment}} would work equally well since there's no need to memorize the name. But it's not arbitrary enough to call it a ref or an anchor, since that would be clearly incorrect. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm...thinking here...(sounds of churning)... It can be named after its function, location, and/or target.

Maybe it should be named after its target, not its own location in the lead. It's a link in the lead section that points to a body section. Right? Would some variation of body section link work?

Also, maybe use a little arrow pointing down instead of the current paragraph symbol. That idea was in a dream. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I think dreaming about this stuff is considered a sign that a wikibreak is in order. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Lead-to-section link (ltsl, lts, lsl)? (I wouldn't have recommended "lbs", either, but that horse has left the barn.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I like that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm sticking with lead basis section. I like the word basis. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Editing to keep open - status unclear, to be continued? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It's been put on hold, for now. GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Trump/Russia in lead...context

This section is a continuation of the previous section #Investigation into Russia interference in election in lead...

Current mention:

The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to favor the election of Trump.

Context should be added from this content in the body:

The report revealed sweeping Russian interference and detailed how Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged it, believing "it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts".

Trump told Kislyak and Sergei Lavrov in May 2017 he was unconcerned about Russian interference in U.S. elections.

Result (after striking part that is unnecessary in the lead):

The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller

Investigations established sweeping Russian interference in the 2016 election in favor of Trump and detailed how Trump welcomed and encouraged it, believing he would benefit from it. Trump told Russian representatives he was unconcerned about Russian interference in U.S. elections.

What say ye? That is all factual, not opinion, solidly based on well-sourced content in the body, mostly from the Mueller Report. That context is important, as it otherwise is just an insertion about the Russians, and says little about Trump. His reaction is the most important part, especially in this article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I have no issues with the factual accuracy, to make it flow a little smoother, ow about rearranging it something like,

> Investigations established that Trump welcomed and encouraged sweeping Russian interference to benefit him in the 2016 election. Andre🚐 02:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I feel it's too long... I like Andrevan's version. I don't like the word sweeping, though. Cessaune (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I like it too. In that version, "sweeping" is out of place. I would add "even telling Kislyak and Sergei Lavrov it did not bother him that Russia interfered in the elections."

That shows he not only knew about it, but also that his denials were lies. He was knowingly collaborating with America's arch enemy. That's just part of the reason he was and is considered a national security risk by all American and allied intelligence agencies. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

• Since the sentence was mostly from the Mueller Report, why remove the specific for a generalized "investigations"? I also prefer "benefit" to "favor". I'd support shortening the sentence to "benefit Trump's campaign" or "benefit Trump", the purpose being to get him elected. Suggestion: The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit Trump who welcomed and encouraged the interference. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  That insinuates a classic conspiracy theory that Trump conspired with Russia to win the election. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  That's literally the fact pattern of the Mueller report as well as the BIPARTISAN Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election: Russians interfered, Trump and campaign welcomed and encouraged the help. Andre🚐 20:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know about that but I do know that you left out the important part that the Mueller investigation did not find that Trump conspired with Russia, which would oppose the conspiracy theory insinuation. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe you should read the linked article. The Committee report found that the Russian government had engaged in an "extensive campaign" to sabotage the election in favor of Donald Trump, which included assistance from some members of Trump's own advisers. Like the Mueller report that preceded it, the report does not find a criminal conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign, but it does go further than the Mueller report in detailing the ties found between Trump campaign members and Russian individuals. In particular, it describes Paul Manafort as "a grave counterintelligence threat". According to the report, "some evidence suggests" that Konstantin Kilimnik, to whom Manafort provided polling data, was directly connected to the Russian theft of Clinton-campaign emails. In addition, while Trump's written testimony in the Mueller report stated that he did not recall speaking with Roger Stone about WikiLeaks, the Senate report concludes that "Trump did, in fact, speak with Stone about WikiLeaks and with members of his Campaign about Stone's access to WikiLeaks on multiple occasions". Andre🚐 20:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia article that you mentioned, there is a NYTimes source that said,

"Like the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who released his findings in April 2019, the Senate report did not conclude that the Trump campaign engaged in a coordinated conspiracy with the Russian government ..."[1]

Bob K31416 (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: did you bother to read this before repeating your error above? . SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC) 16:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• Bob, conflating the legal definition of conspiracy with the pop-culture term "conspiracy theory" fails WP:CIR. Also, in numerous discussions on this talk page, we've explained the issues surrounding the finding. Please don't repeat arguments and concerns that have been conclusively resolved here. There should be an item in our consensus list to cover this if it's not there already. SPECIFICO talk 21:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• I second that, we should have a bit of a formal statement of something that we can all agree to add about this. Andre🚐 21:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, when we have finalized a consensus version, a statement should be included at #Current consensus. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, let's look at what we have so far:

1. Investigations established sweeping Russian interference in the 2016 election in favor of Trump and detailed how Trump welcomed and encouraged it, believing he would benefit from it. Trump told Russian representatives he was unconcerned about Russian interference in U.S. elections. -- Valjean
2. Investigations established that Trump welcomed and encouraged sweeping Russian interference to benefit him in the 2016 election. -- Andrevan
3. The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit Trump who welcomed and encouraged the interference. -- Space4Time3Continuum2x

Any other suggestions? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I currently favor #2, User:Andrevan's version. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I do not think we need to change what we have. Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I don’t believe either of these versions are accurate or portray RS appropriately. 3 is probably the closest minus the phrase after “Trump.” It would be like writing that Clinton solicited and encouraged foreign interference by paying foreign spies to generate oppo research to influence the election. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

That argument is mindless equivocation. SPECIFICO talk 18:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, in what way are they not accurate? Trump did welcome and encourage the interference. Already in 2013 he was discussing his coming campaign with Russians, they promised to help him, Russian intelligence began its hacking operations, and Trump's people were secretly meeting with Russian spies all over Europe. Your blurb about Clinton is just counterfactual Breitbart spin. Clinton didn't even know about Steele until after the election. Read Steele dossier#What the DNC, Clinton campaign, and Steele knew. It was all legal oppo research, which explains why no one has ever been charged for doing it. The purpose of oppo research is to influence elections, and in this case it was a total dud. Because much of it could not be verified at the time, the media wouldn't touch it. The FBI had confidence in Steele's reporting because it backed up their own findings from other sources, so they started to investigate, but it didn't affect the election or the Russia investigation. It was a dud. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree, Ernie's Clinton stuff is completely wrong. Andre🚐 17:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The Trump campaign welcomed and encouraged foreign support in the same way the Clinton campaign did, with the notable exception that the Clinton campaign paid for it. What was it the Russians said they could give Trump? Dirt on Clinton aka opposition research. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

That's definitely not true. The Clinton campaign didn't work with foreign entities, if you mean Fusion GPS, which is a US-based company that hired intelligence analysts. Andre🚐 19:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

You are twisting yourself into a knot with that logic. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Not at all. Trump welcomed foreign interference. Don Jr., if it's what you say, I love it. Clinton did not have foreign help. The oppo research dossier was indeed prepared by a British intelligence agent, but that is a false equivalency to the multiple proven facts about the Russian aid for Trump. No RS say Clinton welcomed foreign interference, but all RS say Trump did. Andre🚐 19:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

RS say the Clinton campaign paid foreign agents for opposition research. That seems pretty welcoming to me. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not accurate, Clinton paid a US-based company for totally legal oppo research. The British government or their agents did not interfere in the election on behalf of Ms. Clinton or hack any email accounts on behalf of Ms. Clinton or get charged with any crimes. It's totally not a good analogy. Andre🚐 21:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I hate all these.

Valjean's second sentence seems way too trivial for the lead. Minus the second sentence, it's okay.

Andrevan's puts too much weight on the idea that Trump welcomed and encouraged Russian interference. Investigations didn't establish that Trump welcomed Russian interference. They established that Russia interfered, and Trump welcomed it. The difference is small but important. To say it this way almost makes it seem like Trump asked Russia to interfere, which is a massive problem much, much bigger that welcoming and encouraging after the fact (regardless, they're still big problems that deserve space in the lead).

SpaceX's (for lack of a better moniker) doesn't make it clear whether or not the investigation itself, as opposed to separate investigations or inquiries, established that Trump welcomed and encouraged the interference, and it doesn't flow well.

I personally like the first sentence of Valjean's version. Cessaune (talk) 05:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Good point. How about … to benefit Trump. Trump welcomed and encouraged the interference., based on the fourth paragraph of Special counsel investigation and the RS supporting it? After reading the sources, I’m not sure whether Trump publicly welcoming and encouraging should be based on investigations alone, whether Mueller's or others, because it’s also based on RS reporting on press conferences Trump gave, this one, for example. (SpaceX? Ugh. I believe that moniker is claimed by some rich guy with a bullhorn who thinks he knows more than he does. They also use spacex.com. I’ve looked at abbreviating my signature but haven’t figured out the customization and linking.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Space4ce, that's the best wording, based on some thoughtful collaboration here. Let's get it up on the page. SPECIFICO talk 14:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

That works for me Andre🚐 15:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, would you please write out the full proposed sentence? I'm getting confused. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit Trump. Trump welcomed and encouraged the interference. It's this version without "campaign" and an additional second sentence on Trump welcoming etc. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

How about The Mueller investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit Trump and that he welcomed and encouraged their help. That flows better. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Both work for me Andre🚐 17:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

This hides the main finding of the Mueller Report. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

It's been several weeks, since I've fully engaged in any political-based content disputes on this BLP. With the US about 10 days away from its mid-term elections? I'm even more reluctant to take sides. Therefore, concerning the topic-in-question, do what ya'll think is best? GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

This discussion has a bias of wanting to include items accusing Trump and excluding items that defend Trump, such as the fact that the Mueller investigation and the Senate report did not find that Trump's campaign conspired with Russia to win the election. In any case, my position is that none of this is appropriate for the lead, as discussed in the previous section that this current section has been separated from. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

They did not legally find sufficient evidence to charge a criminal conspiracy. That's the accurate framing. Still, I disagree, this does belong in the lede. It seems that we have a consensus to include it. Andre🚐 15:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Re framing by RS, perhaps you didn't see my message of 15:20, 29 October above. Also, from p. 181 of the Mueller report,[2]

"The investigation did not establish any agreement among Campaign officials— or between such officials and Russia-linked individuals—to interfere with or obstruct a lawful function of a government agency during the campaign or transition period."

Bob K31416 (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Andrevan, can I ask why you call the lead "lede"? In American English, these are two different and distinct terms. Do you just prefer to use British English for this term or is there some other reason? Thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

That seems offtopic for this page but although I know that Wikipedia uses "lead," lede did start as a journalistic alternate spelling with the same meaning of "lead paragraph." So I use them interchangeably. Andre🚐 16:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Maybe slightly off topic, but since we are talking about how this "lead" should be written, I thought it would be appropriate to review MOS:NOTLEDE. We actually don't want our leads to be written in the "lede" manner, thats all. If you are British, your milage will cary of course ;) Regards, --Malerooster (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I guess you haven't seen MOS:NOTLEDE or the MOS guideline? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of this, and no I am American from NY and not British. But I've worked in the journalism and media world so I tend to think of "lede." It's a spelling for the same concept in my view. I agree that a Wikipedia lead section has a different purpose. Andre🚐 16:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Recommend an RFC

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.

---

It would be best not to leave this decision (include/exclude) in the hands of a small # of editors. Recommend an RFC be opened on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

2nded. --Malerooster (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

No. And there are thousands of page watchers following this talk page, so there is already the broadest decision cohort of any page on Wikipedia. SPECIFICO talk 16:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you opposed to a small # of editors making any editing decisions no matter what or where? How many editors do you think will constitute a "solid" consensus, and at what point will this guideline of yours bring editing on WP to a crashing halt? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Outsider input, would solidify further a consensus for inclusion or exclusion of the proposed edit(s). GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

No issue with an RFC. other than it might be a waste of time. Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Waste of time is the single most destructive problem for present-day Wikipedia. RfC at this point would only obstruct clear, established consensus among those who follow the topic. Just as our opinions on the spinal structure of Agujaceratops would not bring new insights to that page. SPECIFICO talk 17:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Expcept this is not analogous as this requires no specialist knowledge, just the ability to read the media. As such I now support an RFC as it is clear there needs to be feresh eyes to look a this topic. Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

"clear, established consensus among those who follow the topic", you mean the echo chamber, back slapping, cohort here? --Malerooster (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

WP editors do not offer our "specialist knowledge". We summarize accessible RS. The point you make suggests that POV editing is the norm. It's not. It's against our norms. SPECIFICO talk 17:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

"clear, established consensus among those who follow the topic", you mean the echo chamber, back slapping, cohert here? --Malerooster (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

You are referring to 3000+ page watchers as a partisan echo chamber? That is a non-starter. SPECIFICO talk 17:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Nice strawman as usual. No, just the FEW here right now. An RFC at least makes it a larger sample size. For having so many watchers, there is actually very limited comment, which is actually very common for the project. --Malerooster (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't have a minimum quota or quorum. An RFC can be useful to solicit more opinions if we're at an impasse. I don't see that we are. Andre🚐 17:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Says an echo chamber, back slapper leader, himself, lol, --Malerooster (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Ha, I am the leader? I guess I'll take it as a compliment Malerooster? Andre🚐 18:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I struck leader, lol, no compliment intended, j/k. --Malerooster (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

If this is anything to go by, yes we are at an impasse (or at least a slagging match). What it will do (I hope) is to attract fresh eyes, and we can then those who are arguing will see what the wider community thinks, rather than being told what it thinks. Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I won't stand in the way if that is desired. However I would caution that an RFC would essentially freeze the status quo for the duration, which seems unnecessary if we can resolve this without the bureaucratic boondoggle of an RFC to close. Andre🚐 17:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not only unnecessary, it is harmful. This thread feels like bullying and the name-calling and unsupported complaints of bias appear to confirm that. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I know this directed at me, so I will step away now, good luck and editing. --Malerooster (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

You are (were?) here, one of the the FEW the proud here right now, yet I don't see any input of yours other than some quibbling about lead/lede. If none of the watchers of this page want to get involved in any given discussion why shouldn't the few who are involved find a consensus? Oh, and thanks for the echo chamber, back slapping, cohert [sic]. Civility is always appreciated, not to mention a Wikipedia policy. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Anyone involved (or not involved) in this content dispute, are free to open an RFC. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any constructive contribution here, or are you just stating skyblue anyone can do anything? If you have any reasoned thoughts on the issue at hand, this would be the time and place to show them the light of day. SPECIFICO talk 22:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Merely making a statement. You don't need to respond to it. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

No, as a matter of fact half a dozen editors needed to respond to your pointless proposal because that's the way these talk pages work. Bad ideas need to be rebutted because inevitably one or two editors will show up to discuss them. It's a waste of everyone's time -- not least your time and your credibility on politics subjects. SPECIFICO talk 22:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

We were so close to consensus and then I open up my computer and I have 50+ notificaions on this topic alone. Smh. I like discussion, but most RfCs about this guy end in status quo ante bellum. Cessaune (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

We could have a simple Wikipedia:Straw poll about whether an RFC is even needed. A consensus could be found that the RFC is unnecessary. Andre🚐 00:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Why not? Cessaune (talk) 00:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• No RFC, please. The votes of clueless people just blocks progress. There are plenty of active editors and watchers here to ensure a consensus based on knowledge of the grounds for this improvement. GoodDay, please withdraw this suggestion. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  The votes of clueless people just blocks progress. Good god, how do those farts smell? Arkon (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  This comment is needlessly bad faith. Outside eyes would be much welcome at this article, which as you note is dominated by a core group of active watchers, who in my opinion sometimes don't always do the best for this article (a notable example is the recent symbols in the lead saga). Mr Ernie (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• Mr Ernie, don't make personal attacks of bad faith, especially right after a personal attack by Arkon. While you wrote that, I was writing an explanation below. My comment was too short here, so I can understand any misunderstanding of my position, but personal attacks are still unwarranted. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think Mr Ernie was making any personal attacks. "The votes of clueless people just blocks progress" can be reasonably construed as a bad faith comment, I think. To assume that people aren't going to take the time to actually understand the problem at hand can be reasonably construed as bad faith, and yet, it is the assumption we must make in order to retain civility and actually get things done. Outside eyes would be welcome, as long as they are informed. Cessaune (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Outside eyes on political articles like this usually ends up being a mess of uninformed editors who vote based on ideology and not RS. The argument I could make against this is the fact that it might not be WP:DUE to include the 'welcomed and encouraged' part in the lead. Cessaune (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• I suggest that if you think there is a consensus for a version, then make the edit. If it gets reverted, then have an RFC with a formal closing. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
• No RfC. Instead, listing three versions that were supported by several editors at one time or another (see above).

1. Investigations established Russian interference in the 2016 election in favor of Trump and detailed how Trump welcomed and encouraged it, believing he would benefit from it.
2. The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit Trump. Trump welcomed and encouraged the interference.
3. The Mueller investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit Trump and that he welcomed and encouraged their help. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Those three options + a fourth option "None of the above", would be preferable. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

That's preposterous, none of the above. The text has been in the article for years. We are discussing only a small tweak. It is not constructive to jam the gears with a red herring. SPECIFICO talk 15:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

No option should be off the table, we do not get to say "never". If that is the consneuss, that is what we do. Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

RfC is for resolution of issues raised in discussion and at an impasse. The suggestion to make a radical change never contemplated or discussed above is disruptive. That is not to say it cannot be considered in a way that fits our practices and guidelines. SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Those are two strawman arguments. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The Mueller investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." This is the main finding that should be highlighted if Mueller is mentioned. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

RS, not Fox & Friends, that call that the "main finding" of the Mueller Investigation? And we are not talking about the legal issue, since Mueller was not empowered to prosecute sitting POTUS and could not accuse him with POTUS not having the right to a sworn rebuttal at trial. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• BTW, there's no prohibition on starting an RFC, so any editor can start an RFC now or when they feel ready, without permission. For more information on RFCs, see WP:RFC. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Not true. There are prohibitions as they should be a last-ditch move. If a local consensus exists, starting an RfC can be seen as an abuse of the process that is generally disruptive and very time-consuming. See WP:RFCBEFORE. Save RfCs for simple matters (what color to use or which image) where editors are at a split decision and impasse. Complicated and controversial matters that required specialist grade knowledge are best decided by subject matter experts who have studied the history of the topic, all its sources/citations, and its use at the article. Calling in uninformed editors often results in the status quo being left in place, IOW progress is blocked by their ignorance. Many of the uninvolved participants don't perform due diligence, but vote based on their uninformed or misinformed opinions, making an RfC a perfect storm for fringe editors to block progress that supports their fringe (based on unreliable sources) opinions. No, be careful with starting RfCs. They have their place but should be used sparingly for uncontroversial and uncomplicated issues. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not best to describe any editors as being "uninformed" or use descriptions like "ignorance". Best to have 'more faith' in outsiders & recognise that this BLP's content decisions aren't in the hands of a few "specialist grade knowledge" and/or "subject matter experts". GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

How I wish we could believe that were the case, but experience says otherwise. Let's not be naive here. RFCBEFORE is still clear and is being violated here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm just not comfortable about this BLP's content being in the hands of a limited # of editors. A concern I brought up, a few months ago. If someone wants to open an RFC on this current content dispute? It'll be their choice. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Raise your concerns at the appropriate WP forum. Don't forget to provide Policies and Guidelines to support your view. This page is to discuss sourcing, content and policy. Personal thoughts should go elsewhere. SPECIFICO talk 17:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Anyways, Val. That's about it. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I understand the "discomfort", but the situation here is unlike any other. This is certainly the most watched article at Wikipedia, and because of Bannon's "flood the zone with shit" tactic used by Trump in his very successful "firehose of falsehood" strategy to deceive his own followers, a large number of editors share the delusions he spreads far and wide, and that directly affects all RfCs related to Trump. It is counterproductive to quality improvement to draw their attention here. They bring opinions, largely based on misinformation from fringe sources (hence calling them fringe fits with our PAG on the subject of "fringe theories"), and create a mess. (Calling a specific editor "fringe" without strong proof is another matter. I am not doing that at all.)

RFCBEFORE was ignored here. That's now created a mess. This is not a simple matter, so the already huge number of editors at this article and its page watchers is more than enough to deal with the specific issue at hand without starting an RfC. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

There have been RFCs here previously. I think you have a strange theory, especially the part, "a large number of editors share the delusions he spreads far and wide, and that directly affects all RfCs related to Trump." Bob K31416 (talk) 12:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

For example, here's a successful RFC originated by User:GoodDay a few months ago RfC August 2022 that resulted in consensus item 59. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Bob. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean: Your (repeated!) claim that WP:RFCBEFORE was violated or ignored baffles me. RFCBEFORE says:

Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before starting an RfC. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC.

It's indisputable that the "discuss... on the related talk page" part has happened. And while they are ultimately subjective, arguing that "a reasonable attempt at resolving" this hasn't been made, or denying that at least some participants may feel that the involved were not "able to come to a consensus", would be hard sells for me. RFCBEFORE is fully satisfied.

Furthermore, your assertion that the community should Save RfCs for simple matters (what color to use or which image) where editors are at a split decision and impasse. flies in the face of the "What an RFC is" section itself:

A request for comment (RfC) is a request to the Wikipedia community for comment on an issue. Often, the issue is what an article should say. [...] If, for example, the editors of a certain article cannot agree on whether a certain fact should be included, they can use an RfC to find out what the community thinks and, if a consensus emerges, that usually resolves the dispute.

I realize you have your strong personal opinions regarding when and where an RFC should be used to solicit input on a content dispute, but do not conflate those opinions with policy that doesn't support them. The actual, relevant policy here has in no way been ignored or violated. Not even close. FeRDNYC (talk) FeRDNYC (talk) 04:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

(Come to think of it, WP:RFC isn't even policy, it's informational. So there isn't actually any applicable policy here at all.) FeRDNYC (talk) 04:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The point is that you shouldn't swoop in, having not participated in the discussion, and open an RFC on said discussion when you could have simply stated your objections and engaged constructively in a discussion. It's not a reasonable attempt to resolve the dispute to just drop in, having not participated, and suddenly start an RFC. Andre🚐 05:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• No RfC. There are over 3,400 editors watching this page, and over 280 have made recent edits. That's plenty of editors with eyes on the page. Follow WP:RFCBEFORE. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  What counts is not how many editors have this article on their watch list but how many are participating in the discussion. Also, there aren't 3400 editors following this discussion. The average daily page views is currently 290. And of the people who have viewed this page, we don't know how many are viewing this discussion enough to have an opinion about the options under discussion. An RFC would invite people who are willing to review the options under discussion and give their opinion. Bob K31416 (talk) 05:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• No RFC. An RFC would be unhelpful and premature at this point. I agree with Bastun's analysis of watchers and recent editors. The issues being discussed are still fine to be discussed in free-form discussion and the RFC would not be helpful at this point. Andre🚐 18:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Launch an RFC or don't launch one, but if no one is willing to do it can we stop talking about it? THis is waisting as much time as an RFC would. Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• we don't need an RFC to decide to have an RFC If someone wants to put together a NEUTRAL rfc, then do so. There is no consensus required to start and rfc. rfc is a way to get consensus. If the RFC is intentionally disruptive or gaming, take it to ANI/ARB ResultingConstant (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  Very good point. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 14:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  Correct, anyone can start an RFC, but WP:RFCBEFORE says you should discuss whether it is necessary. It seems that many believe it is not in this case. Andre🚐 15:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Andrevan: I have no strong opinion on the underlying question. But imo RFCBefore is satisfied. There has been an attempt at building consensus. That attempt has been unsuccesful. And the discussion above on the meta question clearly doesn't have a consensus against an RFC. At best it itself is no-consensus. In such a clear lack of consensus, an RFC is entirely appropriate. ResultingConstant (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

There's no consensus for any specific change. And there seems to be perhaps a consensus that an RFC is not needed since at best it will probably waste a bunch of time and result in no consensus for any specific change. We don't have a mechanism to prevent opening the RFC but it's just a big waste of time to do so for this specific topic since nothing is likely to be gained from doing it. It's not like someone will revert opening the RFC (though that has happened to me before!) Andre🚐 21:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Andrevan: But WP:RFCBEFORE doesn't say that. Anywhere. The closest thing to what you're claiming it says is the suggestion that, If you are not sure if an RfC is necessary, or about how best to frame it, then you can ask on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments. Which seems completely irrelevant. FeRDNYC (talk) 05:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

RfCs are time consuming, and editor time is valuable. Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before starting an RfC. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC. Andre🚐 05:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Are you honestly claiming the matter has not been thoroughly discussed here? This section is hundreds of comments long. FeRDNYC (talk) 05:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, that only says you're supposed to discuss the disputed content and attempt to resolve it before opening an RFC. It doesn't say anything about having to discuss the RFC itself. FeRDNYC (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I never said the RFC itself had to be discussed, but it's also possible to discuss it and determine there is a consensus that a new RFC would be out of order, premature, not needed, or that the discussion hasn't reached an impasse. Andre🚐 05:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Going to 'hat' the recommendation discussion in a few hours. It's been a week now & nobody's chosen to open an RFC. Indeed the discussion on whether or not to open one, has outgrown the topic it would've been about. GoodDay (talk) 05:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Denial of Purple Hearts

This edit summary says that the cited source attributes the decision-making to the Army. The cited RS also says that he "declar[ed] on Twitter that 'All is well!'", told the press that "some of the troops involved had 'headaches' but that the situation was 'not very serious,'" and that the Trump-appointed defense secretary dragged his feet. Soldiers who were medevaced to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany received Purple Hearts (hard to argue "not very serious" in those cases), dozens of others weren’t. The RS also says that former Pentagon spokeswoman Farrah said that the Trump WH had "leaned on the Defense Department to downplay the attack." The Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the president and commander-in-chief. If the word comes down from the top that it was no big deal, you think "Lieutenant General Pat White, the three-star general who oversaw the entire theatre" will stick his neck out and approve 69 purple hearts? CBS says that the commander of the task force stationed at Ain al-Asad air base submitted 56 names of the injured, and only 23 were approved. "'I heard they had headaches and a couple of other things. I can report it is not very serious,' Trump said at a news conference in Davos, Switzerland, arguing that potential traumatic brain injuries are less severe than amputations. … 'I don’t consider them very serious injuries relative to other injuries that I’ve seen," Trump said, comparing them to troops losing limbs in combat. "No, I do not consider them bad injuries.'" Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC) Direct quote: "I’m pleased to inform you: The American people should be extremely grateful and happy no Americans were harmed in last night’s attack by the Iranian regime. We suffered no casualties, all of our soldiers are safe, and only minimal damage was sustained at our military bases." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

It looks like your wanting to include the phrase "denying them Purple Heart awards" is based on your OR that the Purple Hearts were denied because of Trump's comments. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I always do OR in newspapers available online to everybody. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

If you want the item in the article, you need to find an RS that says what you are concluding through your OR, i.e. that the Purple Hearts were denied because of Trump's comments. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

There's no problem with including this, although we can always consider whether it should go in the Presidency article in addition or instead. Trump's theories on brain loss vs. limb loss might flesh out some of the content on his core beliefs, maybe in the Health section? SPECIFICO talk 15:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Wait, honestly I have no idea what we are including. Cessaune (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Cessaune: Click on the link comprising the second and third words of this section. All will be revealed. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

None of these articles talk about what you're referring to. Cessaune (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Put it in his administration's page. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Idk if this goes in the OR category bc there’s literally nothing in this source or any for that matter stating Trump denied them Purple Hearts. It seems to be purely an interpretation predicated on Trump’s tweets downplaying the severity of the injuries. In reality the issue seems to stem from longstanding Pentagon policy (arguably outdated/backwards) wherein TBIs weren’t considered “casualties” or “combat injuries”. Simply, out until an actual source can be produced attributing the decision to deny Purple Hearts to Trump it shouldn’t be included. However the citation DOES state (quoting a highly reliable source) that Trump pressures the Pentagon to join him in downplaying the severity of the strikes. I feel that information should be incorporated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OgamD218 (talk • contribs)

Per CBS, soldiers they spoke with believed the decision to be political. "After bringing their concerns up the chain of command, Hansen said he and Fix were told to stop asking about the soldiers who did not receive the Purple Heart. "The messaging I was getting was just the political situation wasn't going to support more approvals," Hansen said. In the October 6 letter, Fix wrote, "I was also directed not to inquire about the remaining awards or resubmit those awards." The soldiers CBS spoke with said after the attack, there was pressure to downplay the growing injuries to avoid a further escalation with Iran and avoid undercutting former President Trump. USA Today: Dwight Mears, an author, West Point graduate and former history professor at the military academy who researches military medals, said high-level political interference in lower-level medals like the Purple Heart is unusual. Former President Trump shattered that norm. after reporting that it took the Pentagon a month to even acknowledge that there had been traumatic brain injuries, that 25 soldiers had to be medevaced, and that Trump had said there were no serious injuries. Isn't that sufficient for WP to say that the soldiers were denied the awards because Trump downplayed the injuries? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Re your question — No, because you have not provided an RS that says that the soldiers were denied the awards because Trump downplayed the injuries. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not sufficient. It is a suggestion suported by sources, but we cannot say it because none of the sources provided explicitly say it. Cessaune (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The VFW asked Trump to apologize for his "misguided remarks." Instead, he doubled down. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Although purple hearts are issued in the name of the president in his role as commander-in-chief, it's OR to assume that Trump was involved in determining who received them, let alone that he blocked awards. It's ironic that in a paragraph about what many reliable sources describe as ordering an assassination, that we focus on whether Trump downplayed injuries of U.S. servicemen. TFD (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not ironic. I suspect RS mentioned "whose brain injuries were downplayed by their commander in chief at the time, President Donald Trump" because it's part of his pattern of callous disregard for the suffering of others (something known to give him pleasure), especially when their suffering is related to his actions or events where he wants to score points and capture all attention. He doesn't like that others get any of that attention from the press. RS document it, and we document what they say. That's our job description. Don't fault editors for Trump's foot injuries when he's the one who shot himself. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you not find anything alarming about him ordering the death of someone? Do you know it is against the law to kill someone without lawful reason, which is what many experts have claimed happened? That's more serious in my opinion than allegations of hurtful language. TFD (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

If THAT was your real point, then go for it. That could certainly be developed more. I'm pretty sure that issue has been covered by many RS. Treat it the same way as the killing of bin Laden. Both killings were acts of war in the war with terrorists. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

IOW you agree with Trump's defense of the assassination, but disagree with his defense of his remarks about soldiers' injuries. But that's not the criteria for inclusion. I am not proposing that we add anything, just that if we want to include criticism, we start with the more serious one. Do you agree that illegally killing someone is more serious than insensitive comments? TFD (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm more interested in seeing what RS say about the "assassination" issue, something which world leaders have always done. Maybe Trump's action will be treated differently. Go for it. Dealing with terrorists and those who unlawfully kill American citizens will always draw criticism from partisans and those affected. I'm not sure where the ethical and legal lines are drawn with acts of war, so any enlightenment you find will be appreciated. Maybe we should have an article about Extrajudicial assassinations of terrorists. Oh, we have a related article at Targeted killing. Also Assassination of Qasem Soleimani#Trump's alleged motivation for the strike. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

BTW, isn't this "assassination" issue a bit tangential and off-topic in this thread? It seems a distraction, but I could be wrong. This thread is about how Trump downplayed injuries of U.S. servicemen. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

References

REBOOT of "Airliner shot down"

It just dawned on me that there may be a different issue with this content, so I need to make sure we're understanding Bob K31416 correctly. The NOR matter may be a red herring that distracts from the real issue. Let's see what discussion will reveal.

Bob, you wrote:

---

An item about an airliner in the section Iran violates Wikipedia policy WP:NOR. It is the second part of the following sentence.

Iran retaliated with ballistic missile strikes against two U.S. airbases in Iraq and mistakenly shooting down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 after takeoff from Tehran airport.^[399][396]

The cite that is about the airliner is the first one.

399. Fassihi, Farnaz (January 10, 2020). "Iran Says It Unintentionally Shot Down Ukrainian Airliner". The New York Times. Retrieved October 4, 2021.

The airliner part of the sentence violates WP:NOR, which states in its first paragraph,"To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article..." The given source is not directly related to the topic of the article, which is Trump. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Is the issue that the content doesn't belong in this article because it doesn't mention "retaliation" or some synonym? It seems clear that the missiles were retaliation, but maybe the shooting down of 752 was an accident not directly related to retaliation. Is that the reason you're objecting? Maybe it was just an accident related to the heightened tensions caused by Trump's threats. Please explain your thinking without duplicating your arguments above, as they were not clear enough. Content can be relevant because it speaks to the immediate subject in the sentence or paragraph, even if it doesn't mention Trump. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I stand by my original statement that it violates WP:NOR, regardless of your failed attempt to undermine it by removing a long standing principle from the NOR policy page. To my point has been added an editor asking what does the airliner have to do with Trump. There is an editor mistakenly saying that it is relevant to the Trump article without explaining how and another who just wants to keep it. You said re the airliner item, "It should be removed as off-topic". It looks like there may be a consensus to remove it so it seems that you should be working in that direction. That's about all I have to say. Although the airliner was shot down by the Iranians, it wouldn't surprise me if the airliner item continues flying in this article for a long, long time. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Bob, I'm trying to understand the real objection. Just pointing to NOR is too vague, and thus unhelpful. Please be more specific. What part of NOR is violated? Is it a SYNTH violation, or is it some other aspect?

Also, there is no need to be antagonistic. I'm trying to understand you and approach your POV if possible. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

This is mainly a WP:OFFTOPIC or WP:COATRACK issue (I think it's an offtopic issue). I think the WP:NOR issue Bob is talking about is the connection between American tension and the Ukranian plane, with is not clearly established in either of the sources.

An edit by User:Objective3000 changed the one sentence to these three:

Iran did retaliate with ballistic missile strikes against two U.S. airbases in Iraq. On the same day, Iran shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 after takeoff from Tehran airport. American and allied intelligence concluded that Iran brought down the plane, most likely by accident, amid the heightened tensions between the United States and Iran.

This doesn't make it clear whether or not the tensions are what caused Iran to order the strike. The sources don't establish that either. Cessaune (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

So, I would guess that you disagree with American and international intelligence agencies that directly indicate a connection between Trump actions and the disaster. In any case, the source says exactly that (as I pretty much copied it from the source) and we depend upon reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

No, I just stated that what you wrote doesn't establish whether or not Iran shot down the plane due to the heightened tensions or in spite of/during the heightened tensions. Cessaune (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Bob's objections to this still do not seem to make much sense. Trump had Suleimani killed, Iran retaliated with missile strikes. Those events put Iran in a heightened state of alert, thus some Iranian with an itchy trigger-finger blew up a Ukrainian passenger jet. None of this is a negative reflection on Trump, they're just events that unfolded in the aftermath of the assassination. Zaathras (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

But why is it important to the Trump article? Cessaune (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I looked at the current state of the item and it appears to be synth. It uses one source to say that Trump threatened Iran and follows that with another source to say that the airliner was shot down because of increased tensions between Iran and the US. This implies that the airliner was shot down because of Trump's threats against Iran, a statement that is in neither of the sources. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I don’t like the adverb "accidentally" in this context, and the cited source is dated January 10, 2020, and based on an article from the day before, i.e., before Iran admitted shooting down the jet. The Iranians accidentally shooting down the plane indicates that they didn’t mean to do it - somebody tripped and accidentally hit the red "fire" button. They did it deliberately, however, allegedly mistakenly believing the plane to be "moving in a direction that made it more likely to be a hostile object." Low-level human error, allegedly, after their initial claims that mechanical problems on the plane had caused it to crash. The Guardian reported that missile defense operators, on high alert for American reprisals after the missile attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq (seems it’s not just the MAGA base who believes every word Trump utters on social media - the genius tweet goading fanatics) had moved a battery earlier in the day and then failed to recalibrate their systems. The radar system was "107 degrees off in detecting the trajectory of the Ukrainian jet, giving one of the missile operators the impression it was moving in a direction that made it more likely to be a hostile object." He, no Vasily Arkhipov, was supposed to obtain authorization before firing, couldn’t get through, and fired without approval. Adding RS saying that Iranians believed the plane to be an American warplane. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

And it's still synth. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Cite added to deal with any synth issues. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

It's still synth. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Please stop using words incorrectly. It isn't. Zaathras (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The first sentence of WP:SYNTH is, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." This is the basis of my previous message of 12:12, 6 November. What do you think synth means? Bob K31416 (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

"When the week ended without the war many feared, Mr. Trump boasted that he had taken out an American enemy. But the struggle between two nations is not really over. Iran may find other ways to take revenge. Iraqi leaders may expel American forces, accomplishing in death what General Suleimani tried and failed to do in life. And in the confusion, a Ukrainian civilian passenger jet was destroyed by an Iranian missile, killing 176 people." [3]

"Ukraine International Airlines flight PS752 took off from Tehran’s Imam Khomeini International Airport at 6:12 a.m. local time, just hours after Iran’s military had launched multiple ballistic missiles at U.S. air bases in Iraq. President Trump had threatened that America would attack 52 targets in Iran if the country retaliated for the U.S. assassination of its top general, Qasem Soleimani; it stands to reason that Iranian air defense forces must have been on the highest possible state of alert. What’s more, the plane disappeared from air traffic control screens abruptly, and without the crew issuing a mayday—all suggestive of a sudden, catastrophic event. Trump’s bluster and unpredictability, lauded by some of his allies as a strategic virtue, almost certainly contributed to the conditions that allowed this grievous mistake to be made. This is the sort of thing that happens during a war."[4]

"The narrative after Tuesday’s strikes was that President Donald Trump had “won” the flare-up with Iran. Killing military leader Qassem Soleimani not only avenged the murder of an American contractor by an Iranian-backed militia but also deterred Tehran from further escalating the months-long standoff. That assessment was based on each side losing only one citizen before tensions calmed. But that narrative is increasingly being called into question as evidence grows that nearly 180 people may have lost their lives as a result of Iran’s decision to aggressively retaliate against the US. Based on the New York Times video and other reports, it looks like the Islamic Republic’s air defenses near Tehran were on high alert and mistook the commercial jet for an American warplane. If that’s the case, it was an accident."[5]

"The Ukraine International Airlines flight was shot down with two missiles fired from an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp air defence system in early January 2020, hours after Iran fired missiles at two US bases in neighbouring Iraq. The attack on US interests was in response to the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, Iran’s top general, in a drone strike ordered days earlier by then-President Donald Trump." [6]

Each of these four sources bring up Trump's action followed by the crash and suggest a connection. All sources are considered RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

In what you presented, I did not see an explicit statement that the airliner was shot down because of Trump's threats against Iran, which is what the Wikipedia article implies. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not see an explicit statement that the airliner was shot down because of Trump's threats against Iran in the article either. The article says what multiple RS say. That's what WP does. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Per the wp:synth quote in my previous message of 16:48, 6 November, an implied conclusion in Wikipedia requires an explicit statement in the RS. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but the argument is that if there is no connection between Trump's actions and the Ukraine plane, then it shouldn't be in the article. Cessaune (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

What RS states that there was no connection? Multiple RS strongly imply a connection. (An extremely obvious one, which is why no one thinks this was intentional.) We are allowed to document that. We are laying out the facts stated in multiple RS, and actually being careful not to use the language in some of those articles that makes cause and effect obvious. In fact, I separated the facts into two sentences so as not to directly suggest cause and effect. It merely states that these missile attacks were made by the same country on the same day. Some readers will infer that the plane was shot down by Rothschild space lasers. We can't help that. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

There is a connection implied by the sources, but if that connection isn't explicitly stated by the sources, then I don't think it belongs in the article. Per your own wording, multiple RS strongly imply a connection (emphasis mine). That is not enough.

Iran did retaliate with ballistic missile strikes against two U.S. airbases in Iraq. On the same day, Iran shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 after takeoff from Tehran airport. American and allied intelligence concluded that Iran brought down the plane, most likely by accident, amid the heightened tensions between the United States and Iran.

Amid is vague, I think. Cessaune (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

"Amid" was taken directly from RS and is frankly subtle instead of obvious. Why would we not document what RS say? Look, we are not using RS to synthesize an implication. The RS already make the implication. There is no synthesis. It sounds like you are suggesting the more obvious a connection, the less likely we should document it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

No, I am saying that we are implying something that would be better directly stated. Like this: Iran did retaliate with ballistic missile strikes against two U.S. airbases in Iraq. On the same day, Iran shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 after takeoff from Tehran airport. It is generally believed that Iran brought down the plane by accident, due to heightened tensions between the United States and Iran.

The question is, is this action Trump's fault? If not, I don't think it should go in the article. Cessaune (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

That's not how it goes. For example, Covid, Hurricanes, white supremacists, and Putin are not "Trump's fault" but we still relate the consequences of how he handled them. SPECIFICO talk 22:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit conflict. When RS synthesize an implication or a conclusion, we document it. If there is any doubt, we attribute it. We could say that multiple sources[1][2][3] implied that the shooting down of 752 occurred because of the heightened tensions caused by Trump's threat, and one source[4] stated [quote that 180 people died who might not have died]. (That is a very rough paraphrase, so just work out any inaccuracies rather than crucify me.) Use the exact quote. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm OK with that -- but, it's not crucifixion season yet. . O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

We could attribute it, but the effect is going to be to give it much more emphasis than the current version, as there are many sources about the connection and it is typical of Trump's proclivity to act without understanding or caring to manage the results. SPECIFICO talk 23:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

We can develop this better and only mention it in the body, leaving the mention of missile strikes for the lead. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Sounds OK as long as we are careful about what remains in the lead. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Are we really jumping thru this many hoops to assuage the objections of a lone user? Is there anyone else who seriously objects to the present version of the article? Zaathras (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree the current version is fine, or at least not worth all the time and attention that's been given to an insistant all-or-none objection. SPECIFICO talk 01:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

It is getting a bit absurd. There is clearly no synth problem. The reason that multiple RS make the implication is that it is so blindingly obvious that we are entering the “sky is blue” territory. Assassinations have consequences. Let us not gloss them over, or worse, totally ignore them. RS document this. We document from RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Of course Trump's actions caused the condition in which the plane was shot down. We all know that. However, I think it is unfair to make a direct connection when none is explicitly made, as according to WP rules. An implicit connection is not enough.

Are we really jumping thru this many hoops to assuage the objections of a lone user?—this is the wording of indifference. Again—I agree the current version is fine, or at least not worth all the time and attention—indifference. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be done with a topic, but to argue against it in the first place requires that you stick through till the end.

I have explained my thought process as well as I can. If there is to be no change, so be it. It is what it is. Cessaune (talk) 05:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Cessaune, where do we make this "unfair" "direct connection"? I don't see it. I searched starting at "Iran did retaliate with..." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

None of the sources provided directly (key word directly) state that Trump's actions are what caused the plane to go down.

This is the current sentence in the article:

Iran did retaliate with ballistic missile strikes against two U.S. airbases in Iraq. On the same day, Iran shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 after takeoff from Tehran airport, amid the heightened tensions between the United States and Iran.

I don't think the second sentence, as it stands, belongs in the article. It does not establish any sort of connection between Trump and the flight. There is a connection that needs to be stated. However, I don't think that the previous sentence, American and allied intelligence concluded that Iran brought down the plane, most likely by accident, amid the heightened tensions between the United States and Iran, said anything useful. The sentence does not establish a connection between Trump and the flight. The reader has no idea if the flight was brought down due to the heightened tensions or in spite of/during the period of heighterend tensions. We need to actually state something, and we aren't.

Here are my proposed sentences:

Iran did retaliate with ballistic missile strikes against two U.S. airbases in Iraq. On the same day, Iran shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 after takeoff from Tehran airport. American intellegence determined that the plane was brought down by accident, likely due to the heightened tensions between the United States and Iran. Cessaune (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Here is the current version of the airliner item that is in the Wikipedia article.[7]

On the same day, Iran shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 after takeoff from Tehran airport, amid the heightened tensions between the United States and Iran.

Although the given sources are RS for the airliner item, they do not appear to mention Trump, so the use of the airliner item is OR per my previous remarks. In general, sources that do not mention Trump should not be used in this article about Trump. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The three cites I provided all mentioned Trump. Indeed, two of them in the article titles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

That is easy to fix. We can use these sources, which are mentioned above by User:Objective3000:

1. "When the week ended without the war many feared, Mr. Trump boasted that he had taken out an American enemy. But the struggle between two nations is not really over. Iran may find other ways to take revenge. Iraqi leaders may expel American forces, accomplishing in death what General Suleimani tried and failed to do in life. And in the confusion, a Ukrainian civilian passenger jet was destroyed by an Iranian missile, killing 176 people."
2. "Ukraine International Airlines flight PS752 took off from Tehran’s Imam Khomeini International Airport at 6:12 a.m. local time, just hours after Iran’s military had launched multiple ballistic missiles at U.S. air bases in Iraq. President Trump had threatened that America would attack 52 targets in Iran if the country retaliated for the U.S. assassination of its top general, Qasem Soleimani; it stands to reason that Iranian air defense forces must have been on the highest possible state of alert. What’s more, the plane disappeared from air traffic control screens abruptly, and without the crew issuing a mayday—all suggestive of a sudden, catastrophic event. Trump’s bluster and unpredictability, lauded by some of his allies as a strategic virtue, almost certainly contributed to the conditions that allowed this grievous mistake to be made. This is the sort of thing that happens during a war."
3. "The narrative after Tuesday’s strikes was that President Donald Trump had “won” the flare-up with Iran. Killing military leader Qassem Soleimani not only avenged the murder of an American contractor by an Iranian-backed militia but also deterred Tehran from further escalating the months-long standoff. That assessment was based on each side losing only one citizen before tensions calmed. But that narrative is increasingly being called into question as evidence grows that nearly 180 people may have lost their lives as a result of Iran’s decision to aggressively retaliate against the US. Based on the New York Times video and other reports, it looks like the Islamic Republic’s air defenses near Tehran were on high alert and mistook the commercial jet for an American warplane. If that’s the case, it was an accident."
4. "The Ukraine International Airlines flight was shot down with two missiles fired from an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp air defence system in early January 2020, hours after Iran fired missiles at two US bases in neighbouring Iraq. The attack on US interests was in response to the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, Iran’s top general, in a drone strike ordered days earlier by then-President Donald Trump."

As noted above by User:Objective3000, "Each of these four sources bring up Trump's action followed by the crash and suggest a connection. All sources are considered RS." I have now used them instead of the previous sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The above items 1, 3, and 4 did not mention Trump's threat to attack 52 targets in Iran. Thus they don't support the implication that Trump's threat caused the downing of the airliner. Item 2 from a Vanity Fair article, mentions the Trump threat but the connection with the downing of the airliner is presented as an uncertain opinion of the author. The Wikipedia article simply implies that Trump's threats caused the downing and does not follow the way the source presented it. If you want to include the airliner item, you need to include it from the perspective of the Vanity Fair author who was giving his uncertain opinion and attribute it to the author. The basic problem is that journalists do not know what was in the mind of the air defense operator so they cannot simply say that he shot down the airliner because of Trump's threat. Bob K31416 (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, your demands have now been met. Some of the sources simply document the tensions surrounding the downing of the jet, and some sources now directly connect the event with Trump. Numerous writers (only a few examples were used), especially Canadians (because of the 57 Canadian victims), placed part of the blame on Trump, thus their relevance here. The addition uses the opinions properly and attributes them. I also restored "accidentally" with a source. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I started to look at it and I noticed a differing view was left out of the Canadian part, so I added the following from the same RS.[8]

Of the many in Canada's political and military establishment that viewed the events differently, retired Canadian Maj. Gen. David Fraser said it was just a failure of Iran to manage their airspace after their air defense systems were put on high alert, following their attacks into Iraq.

For reference, here's the part of the RS that I used.

But many in Canada's political and military establishment see the events differently.

"This is a failure of Iranian military planning," says retired Maj. Gen. David Fraser, who led Canadian combat operations during the war in Afghanistan. Iranian military leaders "knew they were going to strike into Iraq, they were going to put their air defense systems on high alert, and they didn't coordinate with the civilian authorities. So that's just a failure of the Iranian command control structure to manage their airspace," he says.

Bob K31416 (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

^ to Bob's point, I don't see a reason why Fraser's opinion is any less valid to include than the opinions of Canadians which are already included.

Aside from that, though, I don't see a reason to quote Canadians from these sources at all. From a WP:10YEARS perspective, I think the point of Canadian reactions to this event could be more succinctly put; or, since this is the "Iran foreign policy section", just removed from the article text, but keeping the cited NPR source. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

And it was reverted. [9] Bob K31416 (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, your demands have now been met. SPECIFICO talk 20:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Bob K31416, what kind of BS is this deletion of content developed after long discussion to resolve a problem YOU pointed out? When all PAG are finally followed, then you delete it? That really looks suspicious. You should have discussed that first. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The point was made with your Jeff Wise/Vanity Fair quote. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I thought that was gone too. My bad. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

For balance, what do you think of adding the following to the Jeff Wise quote?

Retired Canadian Maj. Gen. David Fraser said it was just a failure of Iran to manage their airspace after their air defense systems were put on high alert, following their attacks into Iraq.

Bob K31416 (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

There isn't any balance issue as we already mention that it was an accident. I think we have touched on each issue now in the ways they relate to Trump. Can we close these two threads now? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

No. You have been banging the "it has nothing to do with Trump, it has nothing to do with Trump" drum for days on this. We don't need article bloat with a passage that, this time genuinely, has nothing to do with Trump himself. Zaathras (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a good edit so I'd like to wait a few days and see if there are any other editors that support it. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Add it or re-write it, as you see fit. Though, you'll need a consensus to do so. GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Bob, okay, this is not a good edit. This doesn't have anything to do with Trump whatsoever. We don't need to include a source that negates some of the perceived negativity around this whole flight thing, which is what I'm assuming you are trying to do, as this sentence literally has nothing to do with Trump. Cessaune (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Bob K31416, this excerpt doesn't seem appropriate to add. There may have been some case for inclusion when there were lots of other opinions quoted here; however, this section as it currently is reads in an unbiased way, and looks good to me. I see no direct attributions of blame to Trump that need to be "countered" or "balanced"; just a comment on the state of Iran and relations at the time of the accident, which is quite factually said. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Cessaune, Here's the RS.

McGuffin, David (January 13, 2020). "Some Canadians Are Angry At The U.S. Over Iran's Downing Of Flight 752". NPR.

It's an article about the airliner destruction that discusses Trump's culpability. Here's an excerpt that has a part that accuses Trump, which is followed by a part with a different view, which the proposed edit is based on.

"Iran's recklessness comes in response to the United States-ordered killing of Iran's architect of terror, the head of their special Quds Force, Gen. Soleimani," Adler said in a recent show. "I'll go to my grave believing those innocents who died aboard Ukrainian Airlines Flight 752 would not have died had it not been for Trump's decision to kill the general."

That commentary went viral. So did a Maclean's newsmagazine column written by another conservative commentator, Scott Gilmore, which featured this blunt headline, "Donald Trump gets impeached — 57 Canadians die."

Speaking to CBC, Gilmore said, "I did see a direct line between the impeachment and the president afterwards being outraged at how unfairly treated he saw himself and continually trying to change the topic to the economy or to the strength of the U.S. military." It was a change of topic, Gilmore said, that led to the U.S. killing of Soleimani and resulted in Iran downing Flight 752.

But many in Canada's political and military establishment see the events differently.

"This is a failure of Iranian military planning," says retired Maj. Gen. David Fraser, who led Canadian combat operations during the war in Afghanistan. Iranian military leaders "knew they were going to strike into Iraq, they were going to put their air defense systems on high alert, and they didn't coordinate with the civilian authorities. So that's just a failure of the Iranian command control structure to manage their airspace," he says.

Bob K31416 (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

• Nobody is required to respond to repetitive and insistent posts here. SPECIFICO talk 00:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that the last paragraph is David Fraser's opinion that it is Iran's fault, and not Trump's fault? The phrase does not talk about Trump, therefore, we cannot include it, as based on your arguments in this thread, right? Cessaune (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

It's in an article that discusses Trump's culpability and is a rebuttal to the accusations about Trump, according to the sentence at the beginning of the rebuttal, "But many in Canada's political and military establishment see the events differently." Bob K31416 (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

David Fraser does not say anything about Trump not being to blame. He doesn't reference Trump once. It is OR that Fraser's comments are a rebuttal to the accusations about Trump. Cessaune (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. It's about the fact the downing was an unfortunate accident. It is not about Trump. The whole situation with increased tension caused by Trump's threat to hit 52 targets just increased the likelihood for errors, and it happened. The Iranians were forced to keep their fingers on the trigger all the time in expectation of 52 attacks. They were scared shitless!

We currently cover the tension, the accident, and what some see as Trump's role in it. We're done. Can we now close these two threads and move on to other topics? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Do not close this discussion. I opened a section at WP:NORN to get their input regarding this OR question. Bob K31416 (talk) 06:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

A really bad and disruptive move. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy note since it apparently slipped the OPs mind to do so; Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Trump_bio_—_Iran_mistakenly_shot_down_airliner_II. Zaathras (talk) 06:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean: Huh? What was wrong with the previous version, as edited by O3000, and why add sources that were written BEFORE Iran admitted that they had shot the plane? Also, it's not an accident when they deliberately shoot it down, never mind that they claim to have thought they were shooting at an American fighter aircraft. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2022 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Is there any doubt that it was an accident that they shot down a civilian airliner, rather than what they thought was enemy aircraft? The target was the accident, not the shooting itself. The source I used says that "Evidence is mounting that Iran accidentally shot down the Ukraine flight." Here's the text after my addition of "accidentally":

"On the same day, Iran accidentally shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 after takeoff from Tehran airport, amid the heightened tensions between the United States and Iran."

Is there anything wrong with that? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Here is Objective3000's version:

"On the same day, Iran shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 after takeoff from Tehran airport. American and allied intelligence concluded that Iran brought down the plane, most likely by accident, amid the heightened tensions between the United States and Iran."

Both mention "accidentally". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

This section isn't a reboot, it's a repeat of the preceding one. Same editors, same arguments, same proposals, nibbled to death by ducks. Words have consequences, in this case Trump threatening Iran with already having put targets on 52 Iranian sites should they dare to retaliate for Soleimani's killing. They dared, they put their military on high alert, they weren't able to distinguish a passenger jetliner from Chickenman. Trump set the chain of events in motion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to have turned into a rehash, but we have also made progress. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

"Progress at any cost?" The WP:ONUS is on the editor seeking inclusion. Proposals need to be presented in actionable form. When the discusssion needlessly consumes editor resources that could have worked on half a dozen other important articles in the time it takes to iterate and reject various proposals, the progress is not always worth the opportunity cost. SPECIFICO talk 19:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Airliner shot down

An item about an airliner in the section Iran violates Wikipedia policy WP:NOR. It is the second part of the following sentence.

Iran retaliated with ballistic missile strikes against two U.S. airbases in Iraq and mistakenly shooting down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 after takeoff from Tehran airport.^[399][396]

The cite that is about the airliner is the first one.

399. Fassihi, Farnaz (January 10, 2020). "Iran Says It Unintentionally Shot Down Ukrainian Airliner". The New York Times. Retrieved October 4, 2021.

The airliner part of the sentence violates WP:NOR, which states in its first paragraph,"To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article..." The given source is not directly related to the topic of the article, which is Trump. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting NOR. You have also violated 24 hr BRD. Please undo your second removal and use the talk page. SPECIFICO talk 02:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

1. Your comment has no substance re NOR. You haven't provided any argument.

2. See WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES at the top of this page and note the part "...wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit)." Original edit 01:16, 4 November 2022 [10]. Reinstatement edit 01:53, 5 November 2022‎ [11]

Bob K31416 (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

You are required to discuss on talk after it's reverted. Fail. please self revert. SPECIFICO talk 04:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I discussed it by posting my opening message of this section. Bob K31416 (talk) 04:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not my job to explain the discussion is required after the revert. Read the sanction. I did you the courtesy of mentioning it before reporting it. SPECIFICO talk 04:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Let's discuss then. Cessaune (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

For reference, here is SPECIFICO's revert [12] with edit summary, "There's no Original Research. Information is verified by cited source. If you have other concerns, please use the article talk page" that I addressed here. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

No real reason for removal other than the usual "don't like it". Zaathras (talk) 13:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that keeping OR out of the article is a "real reason". Also, another editor previously deleted the item and gave another reason [13]. BTW Zaathras reverted again [14] and put the item back into the article. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

That user's rationale makes no sense, yours is just a misapplication of policy to cover one's opinion. Zaathras (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

If you think it is a misapplication of policy, show how that's true. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Bob, you are the only one asserting that misinterpretation, so you are the one who would need to justify or find consensus for it. SPECIFICO talk 15:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I explained how it was OR in my opening message here whereas you have not explained why you think it is a misinterpretation.

I started a section at WP:NORN. Unfortunately, after I started it I noticed comments elsewhere on the page that were not many eyes on the page. Oh well. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Bob, NOR has nothing to do with this. The content is backed up by the RS, so no OR. Maybe you're thinking of off-topic or coatrack? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The confusion may exist because that exact phrase from NOR does not belong there and should be removed. NOR is now fixed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

To answer your first message, according to NOR, just being an RS is not enough. For example, Synth uses RSs to make OR. As I quoted from the first paragraph of WP:NOR in my opening message, "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article..." The given source is not directly related to the topic of the article, which is Trump, so the item is OR. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

What has that airliner to do with Trump? Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Nothing. It should be removed as off-topic, not because of NOR or SYNTH. (Unfortunately, Bob restored that irrelevant wording in NOR, so confusion will continue.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

It may have to do with Iranian retaliation, which is the subject right there. See my REBOOT section below. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Because of DS restrictions, we need a very clear consensus to remove it, so no reverting or removal yet. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Three days after Trump warned Iran not to retaliate for Soleimani's killing, claiming to have targeted 52 Iranian sites "to be hit very fast and very hard," Iran launches ballistic missiles against two U.S. bases in Iraq and shoots down a passenger plane erroneously "identified as a hostile target" because of an allegedly "misaligned radar and an error by an air defence operator". If I were stationed at an "Iranian site" after that Trump announcement, though preferably with a radar that's not misaligned, whatever that means, I might be nervous, too, and err on the side of caution. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Would it be alright to 'close/hat' this discussion? Since it's been rebooted below?

Go for it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

We'll have to leave that to another editor, to decide. GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Please place further discussion in the next section #REBOOT of "Airliner shot down". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

References

(Second intro paragraph, beginning of fifth sentence, needs space)

Can’t edit even grammar mistakes like these. Need someone else to. 172.74.203.83 (talk) 06:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Fixed it. Thanks for flagging. Politanvm ^talk 06:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

We need to talk about the bias here

closing as nitpicking in an attempt to insert Wikipedia:FALSEBALANCE Dronebogus (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Look, I don't support Trump in what he does, but it still wasn't hard for me to notice the bias in this article. Entire paragraphs here are just to talk negatively about him. Wikipedia should only give the facts, and not be loaded with opinion articles. Eric McCrea (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC) Read the FAQ at the top of this page EvergreenFir (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC) Also it might help if you told us what you actually objected to, so we could analyze if you are right, and if you are not tell you why. Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC) @Slatersteven I mainly noticed it in the introduction. Specifically, the 4th paragraph, where it talks about the travel bans, border wall, unsuccessful talks with North Korea, etc. I am not against removing this paragraph entirely, as I noticed many of these points are mentioned again later on in the article with less bias. And again, I'm not for Trump and what he did, I never was. Im just trying to promote non-bias in this article. Eric McCrea (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC) You keep saying that, and keep not producing any text you actually disagree with. Which text in the Wikipedia article is inaccurate, either in fact or in presentation? What factual information has been omitted that you believe should be added? Vague assertions of bias aren't helpful. Telling us what information is wrong or missing or whatever is helpful. --Jayron32 19:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC) @Jayron32, You are misunderstanding. It's not the information or the accuracy I have a problem with, and there is nothing I think is missing, either. It's the presentation done wrong. > Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, diverted military funding toward building a wall on the U.S.–Mexico border, and implemented a policy of family separations for apprehended migrants. > Trump met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un three times, but made no progress on denuclearization. Lets look at these two quotes for example. While I believe they are true and accurate, they are tainted with bias. This is only the fourth paragraph in the article, and already we are listing every negative thing against him. These should at the very least be reworded, or removed entirely. This goes against Wikipedia's neutrality rule where it states, "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence." It is very clear there is an amount of editorial bias within this article, with emotional statements looking down on Trump. Eric McCrea (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC) What about those statements is biased? How are we "engaging in disputes" by listing these things? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC) What of these things are not facts? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC) @Muboshgu I don't think he's saying they aren't facts. I think he's saying the selection of which facts are included in which order is biased. He is implying that the facts included in the 4th paragraph are chosen and arranged in such a way as to make Trump look bad. @Eric McCrea; The lead section is supposed to summarize the body of the article. The way the lead is currently structured, each paragraph appears to describe different aspects of Trump and his life. The 4th paragraph describes significant actions/achievements of his presidency in roughly chronological order. How would you recommend the information be presented so as to be less biased? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC) Well, Eric McCrea, there's no basis for such an assertion. This article has had constant attention from dozens of the most experienced Wikipedia editors. No gross error has survived that process. Your comment is typical of many fruitless complaints here that begin "I'm not a Trump supporter, but..." You'll find that specific suggestions are carefully considered, the more specific and well-documented the better. SPECIFICO talk 21:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC) @ONUnicorn It just needs to be reworded, that's all. Paint him in a neutral light, not a negative one. Avoid unessasary side comments. > "ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials in his messaging" This phrase from the fourth paragraph, for example, is not necessary to include in his introduction and is best left for later on in the article. Eric McCrea (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC) His actions in response to the deadly and catastrophic plague are one of the most significant facts of his life. History will forget about the wrestling, the tv show, the hotels, etc. long before it overlooks hundreds of thousands dead on his watch. SPECIFICO talk 21:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC) @SPECIFICO Please remember there is nothing you just said I disagree with. You are right about what you said. You probably have made many more edits than I have, and have probably been on Wikipedia much longer as well. I can't argue with that. I won't press further, thank you for commenting. Eric McCrea (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC) @Eric McCrea So how would you rephrase it? Trump met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un three times., but made no progress on denuclearization. He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials in his messaging, and promoted misinformation about unproven treatments and the need for testing. Do you not think that leaves out necessary context and skews the bias in the other direction? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC) If you read several good books about Trump's response to the pandemic, all from non-partisan sources, maybe even from sources outside the US and therefore not really affected by US politics, what do you imagine they would say? Would it sound something like "Trump ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials"? I think it would. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC) Eric. Nothing substantial can be added to or removed from this bio page, without a consensus to do so. Same with Joe Biden's page or any other bio. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

2022 midterm results

@KlayCax: you violated the active arbitration remedies (24-hr BRD cycle) in effect on the main page with this edit, with the misleading edit summary that you were "reverting ... back to the original" when in reality you reverted to the changes you had made to the article. Please, self-revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x:. "Reverting back to the original wording" was in reference to the lead phrasing. It was marked and explained as a partial reversion in the edit. (Since I was under the persumption that you were only narrowly objecting to some aspects of the lead wording) Hence why I wrote: Partial reversion - reverting the wording of the lead back to the original while adding clarification that the 330 endorsements relate to the *2022 United States elections*. Trump's 2022 endorsements are clearly notable and WP: Due.

As for the specific changes: including making over 200 political endorsements was changed to including making over 330 political endorsements per (McGraw, 2022). I also clarified that the "330 endorsements" was referring to the 2022 United States elections in the lead. Since it could be unclear for readers on when he made "330 endorsements".

As for the deletion of this paragraph: it's WP: Due for the page. (I wasn't under the impression you objected.) It's remarkably clear that the Republican underperformance is notable for his biography.

Is there any part of the changes that you're specifically rejecting to? Beyond the lead being trimmed/underperformance being included?

Thanks, KlayCax (talk) 12:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC).

You need to undo your edit in toto & pronto, KlayCax. You've received the Notice templates on your talk page and the active sanction is explained on this page and in the edit screen. SPECIFICO talk 12:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

with the misleading edit summary I was under the wrongful impression that @Space4Time3Continuum2x: wasn't objecting to those parts of the edit. I immediately reverted it back after the notification from him. I wasn't being misleading. I misunderstood what he meant. It is now reverted back to the 05:32, 12 November 2022‎ version by @Iamreallygoodatcheckers:.

It was a partial reversion under Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts.

I thought Space4Time's objections were addressed in the partial reversion. Apologies. KlayCax (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I objected three times, here to the change in the lead, here to the potential 2024 run and Trump’s statements on DeSantis and Youngkin, and here to the other changes in the post-presidency section, such as moving the "Big Lie" into a new 2022 election section (do you have any sources to support what appears to be your opinion that it had anything to do with the midterms?). As for WP:DUE for the page … It's remarkably clear that the Republican underperformance is notable for his biography, why? The sources merely say that "many Republicans blame". He endorsed, but it was the members of the Republican Party who elected the Republican candidates in the primaries (and in the general election in red districts). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

This is the status quo ante I reverted to. Not sure why you, KlayCax, reverted to a version I objected to, never mind that you piled your changes onto Iamreallygoodatcheckers's. My edit summary (Not an improvement - pls discuss these changes on the Talk page. Trump wasn't running for office in 2022, the blame game has only begun, and some election results are still pending) applied to the end product.Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC) Seems to me that this top bio doesn’t need more than the short status quo ante version (Trump’s endorsement were mostly seen as important for candidates in Republican primary elections) with the add-on "but many of them lost in the general election". Put the rest in Republican Party (United States) and/or 2022 United States elections. Trump beginning to "jab" DeSantis and Youngkin belongs in the newspapers, not in an encyclopedia. 3RR prevents me from reverting. I’m not sure whether KlayCax’s edit falls under the 24-hr BRD cycle since they now re-reverted to a version they had built upon and I had objected to. If it doesn’t violate the letter, it violates the spirit, IMO, reverting instead of discussing. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

"Since leaving office...", reads better then "Following his presidency...", BTW. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

"Since being escorted from his office with a cache of top secret documents..." SPECIFICO talk 18:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

"Since absconding from his office with a cache of top secret documents, love letters from North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un ..." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

It's a matter of opinion. Meh — sooner or later it will be changed to past tense "after he left ... he remained". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

KlayCax, best to observe & respect the 24-hr BRD cycle. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• In the spirit of BRD, I've restored the article to before my first edit. At this point it needs to be a content discussion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 00:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting. I changed the heading of this section to reflect content discussion. This is what we're discussing: Many of Trump's endorsements were inexperienced and underperformed in the general election, which led many Republicans to blame Trump for the lackluster performance of the Republican Party in the 2022 midterms and question whether he should continue as the leader of the party. Following the election, Trump began jabbing Ron DeSantis and Glenn Youngkin, potential challengers in the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries.

At this point, IMO this top bio doesn’t need more than the short status quo ante version (Trump’s endorsement were mostly seen as important for candidates in Republican primary elections) with the add-on "but many of them lost in the general election". So the red wave the GOP was expecting didn't materialize, RS say some Republicans blame Trump while Trump claimed "219 WINS and 16 Losses in the General – Who has ever done better than that?" on November 10. Meanwhile we won't know for at least a couple of weeks just how off those expectations were (Politico's running tally on House results). We'd be better off to wait until the final results are in and RS have more than GOP speculations on the causes. DeSantis and Youngkin: if Trump announces his candidacy and other potential candidates don't immediately announce fealty, there will be a lot more name calling. For now, it's WP:NEWS, IMO. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, let's let the dust settle & await what's to come in 2023. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll concede that jabbing DeSantis/Youngkin is NOTNEWS. However, simply adding on but many of them lost in the general election is not sufficient enough. It needs to be understood that many RS and fellow Republicans are blaming Trump for his endorsements in key races that lost. That is significant because it's putting Trump in a predicament that may be devastating to his political standing in his party. Surely that warrants one sentence in this article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 00:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

You said it yourself: may be devastating. It's speculation at this point. After the January 6, 2021, insurrection, Republicans initially blamed Trump, then, "just a few weeks later, [were] already singing a different tune". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Jan 6

It's not proven that our president invited the people 174.251.135.96 (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is proven. He even knew that some of his supporters were armed with weapons, so he asked that metal detectors be deactivated so they could pass through them and march to the Capitol. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

2024 in the lead

Reading over the precedence of contention regarding the basics of the lead, I have a feeling that the inclusion of mentioning the recent 2024 campaign announcement might be up for comment. I generally support it, given that it is safe to assume Trump's elevated political activity and involvement is a theme sufficiently active enough to merit including at least the basis for including mentions of further presidential campaign activity; admittedly, the subject of what goes in and what doesn't probably deserves discussion from those far more versed on the discussion than I am.

So I'm posting just to clear it and make note of it for archival's sake, because maybe the wording could use tweaking and as the campaign situation evolves, so will consensus on it emerge (probably forcing terms of the campaign's inclusion in the lead to be enshrined in the huge consensus list posted up there in the talk). Better to act cautiously ‒overthrows 04:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd wait until late 2023 'or' until others announce their candidacies for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. GoodDay (talk) 05:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Special Counsel

On November 18, 2022, Garland appointed Jack Smith as a special counsel to lead a probe on Trump's handling of these documents.

References

I added the sentence above within the Post-presidency (2021–present) >> FBI investigation subsection (User:Nerguy added the counsel's name, thank you!)

But it doesn't fit. The special counsel (SC) was not appointed as part of the probe on the classified docs, he was appointed to centralize all federal probes, including ones regarding Trump's involvement in January 6th (if I'm reading news reports correctly).

Where should we put this, and how should we phrase it?

I considered putting it under Post-presidency (2021–present) >> 2024 presidential campaign, but then it may imply to some readers that the SC was political retaliation on Biden's part; I actually think explaining the reason for the SC's formation (to make the probes independent from the Biden admin, and avoid any accusations of impropriety) would be a good idea, but we'd need to agree on the wording; that explanation would ideally be very brief, just a few words. DFlhb (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe creating a Post-presidency of Donald Trump page, would be best. We just don't need this BLP getting any longer. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I moved the info into its own subsection under Post-presidential investigations. AP and NY Times both use the plural (investigations, probes); sounds as though the special counsel is taking over the supervision previously exercised directly by Garland. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Abraham Accords

I know this has discussed before, but no resolution was ever brought forth. This article has some of the most insignificant things possible about Trump's foreign policy, such as him hypothetically saying he would strike back at Iran after they struck U.S. troops in Iraq (a hypothetical that never became reality) yet it doesn't have the most major treaty negotiated under him in 2020? Israel's peace with the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco was hailed as significant by numerous international observers, far more than say a single quote from one American journalist saying that Trump was to blame for Iran's shooting of an airliner. The page has an insane amount of fluff, yet something substantial can't fit in? Bill Williams 14:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

This is disruptive. It's been raised and rejected repeatedly. I urge all editors to resist the temptation to reply and start a long thread signifying nothing. SPECIFICO talk 14:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Or take for example a sentence about how the U.S. unsuccessfully tried to take a reinstate U.N sanction over the Iran nuclear deal. You can also see one about how Trump did not make a comment on alleged program by Russia in Afghanistan which the DoD and U.S. intelligence said they had no evidence to corroborate and "low confidence" in its existence. The lack of a comment on a specific allegation with no merit, or the attempt to take a specific action that failed to occur, or a comment on a hypothetical attack on a specific country that never happened, all are far less significant than the Abraham Accords, and there are plenty more examples. There is nothing disruptive about pointing out how useless information is in this article while more important things fail to be mentioned. If you think a discussion cannot succeed, then an RfC should be held, but either way something must be done because there are dozens of reliable sources on the significance of this. Bill Williams 14:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The Israel section is far shorter than the others under Foreign policy. Given that it's (IMO) one of the few things Trump received bipartisan praise for, and will likely be quite historically significant for the region (especially with Biden supporting the Accords), I don't see why it doesn't deserve a sentence or two. And BTW, consensus can change; it's not disruptive to attempt to discuss it. DFlhb (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC) shouldn't be the priority right now DFlhb (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

As someone uninvolved with previous discussions, I don't see a strong reason why a simple mention of the Accords shouldn't be included in the Foreign Policy section, as it stands. Trying to parse old discussions to see what points had been made, this is what I found:

• The most recent discussion. No apparent consensus for exclusion or inclusion.
  • Main arguments for exclusion seemed to be 1) It belongs in the 'Presidency of' article, not this one; 2) Trump was not personally involved enough for it to be mentioned; and 3) "This has been rejected before."
  • Main arguments for inclusion seemed to be 1) Trump is attributed as having a hand in completing these resolutions, by a multitude of RS: 1 2 3 4 5 6; and 2) The deal appears to have lasting impact, being talked about by RS 2 years later, and built upon by the next administration 1 2 3 4
  • Consensus for exclusion didn't seem very strong; seems it was excluded because editors lost interest, and kept status quo
• An earlier discussion from 2021. Formally closed after long discussion in favor of exclusion, noting that the 'Presidency of' article seemed to be the preferred place for mention
  • IMO, less relevant than the most recent discussion because of additional coverage in RS since then, and acknowledgement of the accords by the next administration.
• Another early discussion from 2020. Pretty summarily closed in favor of exclusion, based on most editors saying it belonged only in the 'Presidency of' article, and that its lasting significance wasn't yet apparent.

Honestly, based on all of that, I don't see a legitimate reason to exclude a minor mention of these accords in this article. The 'Foreign Policy' section in this article is quite extensive already; seems odd to draw the WP:UNDUE line in the sand here. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

• Two years later, the lasting impact doesn't look all that rosy. From a current analysis in Foreign Policy: "Last week, the Abraham Accords, arguably one of the Trump administration’s few foreign-policy achievements, marked their second anniversary amid growing signs that the accords’ bypassing of the Palestinian issue raises serious questions about their role as a vehicle for peace. The accords—signed at the White House two years ago between Israel, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain—set the stage for covert relations to emerge and flourish ... At the time, then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lauded the accords as a breakthrough because they divorced normalization with Arab states from any Israeli peace with the Palestinians. What looked like a breakthrough then now looks like the biggest drawback of the accords." The article mentions Trump's name once, in "Trump administration" in the sentence I quoted above, arguably a reason to put the Accords in the Presidency of Donald Trump article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

  Ok. That's only one article. I linked plenty others that gave stronger attribution to Trump, and have rosier views of the impact. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Except for two (NPR and Hill), all of the articles you linked are from 2020, no? I'll have to take a closer look at the NPR and Hill articles from July 2022. At first reading they don't seem to be all that rosy to me, and Saudi Arabia hasn't changed its stance. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Does it matter whether the sources view the Accords in a positive light or a negative light? Why would either way preclude their mere mention in this article?

Here's another source from 2022. The fact that it's still being talked about is enough to give it notability; that said, and for other reasons discussed, I still fail to see a reason why it SHOULDN'T be included in this article.PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I've no objections to including the Abraham Accords. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

To further put this into perspective, the 'Presidency' section of this article is currently ~223,000 bytes, and around ~9700 words long. This is in spite of the fact that the articles Presidency of Donald Trump and Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency already exist. The proposed addition which is being opposed (one example here) would be ~250 bytes, and ~35 words - an addition of 0.25% the length of this section. For such a small addition, I don't understand the impassioned opinion of those who disagree based on the grounds "it belongs in the 'Presidency of' article, not here." That argument is weak, and it should have little, if any, weight in this discussion, considering the current size of this article. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

It's too absurd that people are saying this deal has a negligible impact, and as a result we shouldn't mentioned it. We must add this section and maybe we can mention what was the impact of it in two years later. I didn't know that Wikipedia editors have to judge the actions as well! you're here to tell the truth, it's up to the readers to decide. Unfortunately it seems that Wikipedia political articles are controlled by the same editors in the mainstream media trying to hide or undermine Trump's achievements — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaka123 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

What achievements? He never accomplished anything. Dimadick (talk) 08:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Over a dozen reliable sources can be found specifically referring to the Abraham Accords as a significant "achievement" or "accomplishment" of Trump. We should keep POV out of the article, as we are discussing notable things according to the sources, not personal opinions on the matter. Bill Williams 01:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

12 out of how many total publications about Trump? 30 million? 40 million? SPECIFICO talk 03:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I also added info on Morocco and Sudan, since it was a major change in U.S., Moroccan, and Sudanese foreign policy. Sudan was under heavy sanctions until it was removed from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list before it normalized relations with Israel, while Moroccan control over Western Sahara was recognized by almost no country until the U.S. did so. Morocco also received billions in additional arms sales while it and Sudan both engaged in economic and tourist agreements with Israel in response to the normalization. Considering the restriction of travel on Sudan was already mentioned in the article, and that had far less of an effect than the crippling sanctions on the nation, while other disputed territory recognition was mentioned as well, I think it is my addition is warranted for inclusion. Bill Williams 02:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Removed. As stated numerous times by numerous editors, take it to the appropriate sub-article. It does not belong in the Trump biography. Zaathras (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bill Williams:, the only way you might get consensus for inclusion. Would be via the RFC route. A local consensus seems highly unlikely. GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Yeah this is asinine, I'll start an RfC. There are hundreds of sentences, many of which are on minor issues, yet something major like this can't be included? Bill Williams 05:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Current equivalents of Trump wealth and debts

Kobra98, you added current equivalents to various dollar amounts, stating that "converting dollar amounts for inflation gives context to readers." Is that context readers need or want, 'though? What they lose is the cites for the sentences since the template adds its own cites. E.g., the cite for the first two sentences of Donald_Trump#Wealth is the one after the second sentence. With the addition of the template, it looks as though the American Antiquarian Society PDFs are the cites for the sentence. Sure, we could fix that by adding the actual cite to the first sentence, too, but do we need to know the current equivalents of hundreds of millions of dollars? Kudos for developing that template, but a better place for it would be the main article Wealth of Donald Trump. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, we probably do want to know that. Inflation has a significant effect over the course of 40 years. Back in the day, I was buying gasoline for a dollar a gallon. It got above $6 this year, but most of that difference is due to ordinary inflation. (I figure $3 is due to inflation and $2 to increased taxes and the [I hope] temporary world situation.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think that readers want that context. I'm a reader and I want that context, and I don't think we should withhold meaningful context from this page just because we could also provide it on another page. And adding citations doesn't lose the citations that are already there. If a reader is looking for a citation, they can continue to look as they always have. Kobra98 (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm a reader who can't relate to $562 million any better than to $200 million. In one of the sentences the equivalent doesn't even make sense: In 1995, his reported losses were $915.7 million (equivalent to $1.63 billion in 2021). Trump received a tax credit for $915.7 million, and he offset that amount against taxes due for almost 20 years, never mind equivalents due to inflation. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

2024 Run

Would it be better to place 2024, underneath the Post-presidency (2021–present) section where it was originally was? The articles events seem to run in chronological order with the 2024 presidental campaign now in the middle and all of Trump's presidency and his policies are now underneath it. Aaron106 (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

He was/is a former president, when he announced his 2024 bid. So sure. GoodDay (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Would it be possible to create a "comparison section" that showed any possible similarities between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Truth Social Link?

Should we link to the former president's truth social account page? Since he is currently actively tweeting from there instead of twitter and is now a presidential candidate again, seems like something worthy of mention. Saw a similar thread above about his twitter link, so feel free to merge this with that if deemed appropriate. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

We should not link to his Truth Social account, per WP:NOSOCIAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

But then why are we including a link to his active but presently unused twitter account? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to just link to the archived tweets because history but omit the active link for the same reason above? 23.84.19.247 (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know we were. I deleted the link to the Twitter account. I do also see in the #Current consensus section that there was a consensus to include it while it was active. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The link was added less than three hours before you removed it. The consensus was to remove it and to add the archive link. We would need a new consensus to add it if Trump starts using it again. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The difference between Trump's Twitter and Trump's Truth Social is that the former became more of a phenomenon in itself, i.e. Social media use by Donald Trump is dominated by the Twitter section, while everything else is lumped under an "Other" type header. Linking to it became a necessity given the notability, thus was an exception to WP:NOSOCIAL. Truth Social is just the minor social media echo chamber that Trump is apparently contractually obligated to use as his primary one. So IMO yes to Twitter linkage, no to T.S. Zaathras (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

You mean yes to the archive link right? Because the active (i.e. no longer suspended) but presently unused twitter account is no longer a phenomenon since nothing is happening on it anymore. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Remove redundant citations from lead section

Currently, the lead section has two citations for the "Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history" sentence. However, both of these citations are repeated in the body (the "Approval ratings and scholar surveys" section in particular), which would make the citations redundant. Mucube (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mucube: per current consensus at the top of this page (Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus, item [58]) "There is consensus towards using inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations."

More to your point, per MOS:LEADCITE: "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead. (emphasis not mine). Also, the hidden note is definitely appropriate and shouldn't be removed as I'd imagine that particular sentence would have a tendency of being removed without those removing it realising it's supported by consensus. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 01:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Too many drive-by IPs and "new" editors whined about "how can you say Trump is the worst, there's no proof!!!" and such, so the consensus solution was to provide citations in the lede to stem said whining. Zaathras (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Add environmental record to lead

I know that the lead is long and that there is a discussion going on right now over whether or not it is biased, but if we can discuss bias at length perhaps we could discuss something that has bothered me for a long time. Please see our article Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration. What do you think, should we mention it in the lead? Sectionworker (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The only place in the lead I could see a mention of this going is somewhere in the 3rd paragraph. Though, I don't think his environmental policy is quite as relevant to this article (Donald Trump, the man) as some other events/policies from his presidency that do get mention there, like the border wall, the China trade war, and the Covid-19 pandemic.

Why do you think this should be mentioned in the lead, when it could be covered in the body? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe that climate change may be the most important issue that we are dealing with today because our decisions will affect our way of life for a long time to come. Trump said that he was going to get rid of the EPA and he almost did, while he gave industry free rein to pollute to their heart's content with only profit to care about. I believe that this issue is as important as the border wall or the China trade war. I want to see what others think because I'm aware that I have a personal bias on the issue. Sectionworker (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• Okay, since we're basically running up against the "already too long" wall, if we're going to include this information, what less important information do you suggest we remove to accommodate the addition? --Jayron32 16:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

How about this: "Trump initiated a trade war with China and withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement"?Sectionworker ([[User

That is too important to replace, but a sentence on environment would be OK. SPECIFICO talk 17:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO Could you explain your rationale behind supporting this addition to the lead, but opposing the addition of a mention of the Abraham Accords in the body? Your prior arguments against the latter - "it belongs in the 'Presidency of' article" (example) and "Trump himself wasn't personally involved enough" (example) - could both be applied here, it seems. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I can't see what this has to do with my question. Sectionworker (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

They're throwing their support behind your proposed addition, after opposing a similar addition proposal rooted in similar arguments. It seems relevant to ask them for clarification on their vote here. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I recommend removing the sentence about where he went to college. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm all for that although I think that most bios do have that in the lead. Sectionworker (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

• I think it's important to read the Trump environmental record article to understand that much of his environmental policy had to do with more than just his presidency. Remember Sharpiegate? As a person he is completely unable to admit he's ever been wrong about anything. Also, it is clear that his policies went far beyond any concern what so ever about the environment but were entirely about ways to increase corporate means to increase profits, most certainly including his own and those of people he wanted to have in his group of buddies. Think about how he wanted to be pals with Russia and how he saw a Trump hotel on the ocean shores in North Korea. There is no reason that his personal plans for ways to benefit from the presidency did not include getting rid of pesky rules about the environment either. Actually he's a lot like Putin in that it is hard to separate their personal life from their political positions as heads of government. (Sorry for the length here on something that may be pretty obvious) Sectionworker (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Please, the lead is already very long. Create a new page or put proposed info into a related page. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Did you read the Trump environmental policy page? Sectionworker (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Put the info in that page. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

It's already in that page. Sectionworker (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Well then. We don't need it added to 'this' page. GoodDay (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Repeatedly asserting that it should be omitted -- without any argument as to NPOV, sourcing, policy and the proposed content, is not and cannot advance this discussion toward a conclusion. And the length thing is a dead issue -- it's been discussesd many times here and it's no excuse for violating NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 01:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

It's up to you, Sectionworker. Do as you please. GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Would this be OK? During his time in office Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement on climate change, rolled back major climate policies and rules governing clean water and air, toxic chemicals, and wildlife. Sectionworker (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I can't understand why I am not getting any feedback. OK, I have added what we had in the lead already and it now looks like this: During his time in office Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement on climate change, rolled back major climate policies and rules governing clean water and air, toxic chemicals, and wildlife. If I don't get any comments I'm going to add it to the lead. Sectionworker (talk) 06:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

We may all be suffering from lead overload. The Paris Agreement is mentioned in the lead as one of his foreign policy "accomplishments". In foreign policy, Trump initiated a trade war with China and withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. Internal U.S. policies and regulations (rolled back major climate policies and rules governing clean water and air, toxic chemicals, and wildlife) are a different matter, and the Biden administration got to work on undoing them right after Biden's inauguration {January 20, 2021, Executive Order). How about He rolled back environmental policies and regulations, 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. in the fourth paragraph? IMO, the rest is too much detail for the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that we all agree that we write for our readers. We try to look at everything and choose what we, as experienced editors, think is the most encyclopedic information that our readers expect. Most of our readers agree that we face a climate emergency. [15] thus I don't believe that the words "rolled back major climate policies" are too much. Then, how about if we include "rules governing clean water, air, and toxic chemicals" but skip wildlife.Sectionworker (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The lead summarizes the body, keeping the text general is better. Environmental policies and regulations includes everything. The rollback removed the requirement for federal agencies to consider the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of their actions, including those related to climate change and social impacts like cutting up minority neighborhoods for highways, etc. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. It could read, "Rolled back more than 100 environmental policies and regulations." Sectionworker (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

That's compact and seems to convey his actions. However for the sake of NPOV, I wonder whether every president in recent years may not have rolled back numerous policies and actions that were far less significant but nevertheless also consistent with that language? This is not to nitpick, just that we don't want to say something that "sounds bad" and lead the reader to make a conclusion not directly stated in the article text. But I'm OK with the proposed wording. SPECIFICO talk 18:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

From the NYT: “This is a very aggressive attempt to rewrite our laws and reinterpret the meaning of environmental protections,” said Hana V. Vizcarra, a staff attorney at Harvard’s Environmental and Energy Law Program who has tracked the policy changes since 2018. “This administration is leaving a truly unprecedented legacy.” [16] Sectionworker (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. In light of that, perhaps the word "aggressive" should appear in the article and lead text. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

In the body would that be a direct quote or using Wikipedia voice? I also like the “This administration is leaving a truly unprecedented legacy.” sentence. Sectionworker (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what I'm supposed to edit here. Finally after all that discussion it's decided that it's OK to add a sentence to the lead and in fact at the last minute to also include the word "aggressive". But not a peep out of anyone about how to add that word to the lead. I will add: He rolled back more than 100 environmental policies and regulations in "a very aggressive attempt to rewrite our laws and reinterpret the meaning of environmental protections". So then I suppose people will say I need talk page approval first... Sectionworker (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the lead, there are no sources and I'd need a source when using a quote, and then I remembered that it is not as a rule OK to put quotes in the lead. So will hold off adding it hoping that someone will help me. Sectionworker (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You could just say "to weaken environmental protections". I believe that the quote in "a very aggressive attempt to rewrite our laws and reinterpret the meaning of environmental protections" appears in the article body in the appropriate context. SPECIFICO talk 22:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Blue in the lead

Okay, okay.

This article is too long to not have more blue in the lead. This extreme 'no blue in the lead' stance that has been taken here minimizes efficiency. Regardless of how controversial any specific statement is, some statements are deserving of a little blue because they are inherently complicated or interesting, IMHO.

1. Do nothing
2. Section sign idea
3. More links
4. More inline citations

I want to open an RfC about this. An article this big requires more blue in the lead, if not solely for the purpose of helping readers navigate. What do y'all think? Cessaune (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you are out of control and need to NOT start an RFC. --Malerooster (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

This was a civil attempt to voice an opinion based on evidence I have accrued from around a year of participation in discussions on this page (and it doesnt even deal with the content, but rather, the accesibility of the content, so it that way it is inherently less controversial than most things discussed on this page). There is a reason why I came here to say that I wanted to open an RfC, and I didn't jus open an RfC (as we all know RfCs aren't always the best way to go about things, especially for this article). Despite this, you respond with an uncivil retort on how I am "out of control". What did I do wrong? I don't get it. Cessaune (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Please don't open up an RFC about adding more links to the lead. GoodDay (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I mean, it doesn't have to be an RfC. We could just discuss. Cessaune (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

How about, no. Zaathras (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• Which specific terms from the lead do you think need additional linking, and why do you think each of them needs it? --Jayron32 12:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  ^ Seconded. We can discuss on a case-by-case basis, since it seems everyone has a different opinion on each link - we've already seen edits with bulk additions of links get made and reverted a few times now. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  I want to establish whether this conversation is even needed before I worry about which links go where. I don't think people want to have a conversation about it, though, so I just wanted to see how receptive people are to this idea. Let's first establish whether this conversation needs to be had. We don't need to hold a lengthy discussion that will end in stalemate if we don't want to. I want to push this, and some of these no votes are, IMO, uninformative and only exist because people don't want to talk about this idea, due to previous proceedings on this page. Cessaune (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  Well, so far the answer to your general question "should this article have more blue in the lead" looks like "No." Your next step could be proposing more specific links to add, to get those "No" votes to agree on more minor additions. My 2 cents. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  I definitely think we need "more blue" in the lead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

  I'd link four words that I'd bet most people are unsure of: populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist. Also Special council investigation, Popular vote, Appellate judges, and perhaps impeached. I'm leaving special council red because most people wouldn't know what to search for either. I'd likely be agreeable to most others as well. Sectionworker (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Most people? I beg to differ. They're commonly used dictionary words, and if any reader doesn't know what populist, protectionist, isolationist, nationalist, or Muslim means they'll know how to look them up in a dictionary. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The purpose of links is to direct readers to articles which they might find interesting, not to provide definitions of terms they don't understand. If a term is unlikely to be understood, we should either use one that is or explain what it means. I think a good rule is to assume that at a minimum, readers have the same level of comprehension required to understand mainstream quality news sources. If CNN can use terms such as appellate court or nationalist without explaining to viewers what they mean, then so should this article. There's a Simple English Wikipedia for readers with limited vocabularies. TFD (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Twitter page link?

So since his twitter page was just restored, should we include a link to it in the "External Links" section, like we had before his twitter page was suspended? I noticed that the link to the archive requires consensus to change. 08:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC) Mgasparin (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it exists at the moment.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

It's a no-brainer. The link to his real Twitter should be added. But since he's also deleted some tweets, I wouldn't oppose the archive link being kept too. DFlhb (talk) 09:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I think we should keep the link to the archive for now and not link to the restored account Trump "hasn't agreed to return" to. "I like Elon, but I’m staying on Truth," Mr. Trump said during a Fox News interview after Mr. Musk’s takeover. ... Mr. Trump is obligated to make his posts available exclusively on Truth Social for six hours before sharing them on other sites, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. He can post to any site immediately if the messages pertain to political messaging, fund-raising, or get-out-the-vote initiatives. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother linking to it, if the former president isn't using Twitter anymore. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but I strongly suspect that he will come back to Twitter at some point. Mgasparin (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Let it happen first before switching it over. If he ultimately doesn't return then I'd say the archive link probably makes more sense. If he does return then this becomes issue. But otherwise it'd be a link to something not in active use. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

On the one hand, Trump is indeed unlikely to return to Twitter, since he seems contractually "obligated to make any social media post on Truth Social".[17]

On the other hand, the archive is independently-run, doesn't seem to be backed by proper funding (questionable sustainability), and lacks any media Trump tweeted (videos, images). The website is clearly designed for academics and researchers more than the general public, with its austere interface and advanced search syntax; but the lack of media support mean that the archive cannot fully replace his actual Twitter.

The previous RFC[18] was premised on Trump being suspended, and the consensus was that a link to his tweets (whether an archive, or a direct link) belonged here. Given that the archive lacks media, and that Trump was reinstated, I think keeping both is option that best matches the spirit of that consensus. DFlhb (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I've added the twitter page link. I have also kept the link to the archive, since as DFlhb stated, many tweets were deleted over the course of his presidency. Mgasparin (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Reacted Slowly to Covid Pandemic

"reacted slowly to the COVID-19 Pandemic" is an opinionated statement and should be changed, especially with the development of the vaccine and democrats calling his border closing xenophobic. Nkienzle (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Nkienzle:  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. (please note that most paragraphs in the lead of this article are established by longstanding consensus.) Colonestarrice (talk) 06:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

no Nkienzle (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Then I guess we’re done here. Consider this request changed to  Not done. Dronebogus (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed change to external links

Revision permalink.

I don't believe there is previous consensus on any of these. These proposals each stand on their own, and are not mutually exclusive, so please weigh in on each.

Proposal A: remove the following external link:

• Trump's news blog

It now a redirect to a donation page.

Proposal B: remove the following external link:

• Donald Trump collected news and commentary from The New York Times

I see no reason to elevate the NYT's coverage above others. This link merely shows recent articles about Trump; it's not a fancy visualization, or deep-dive, or a single page that seeks to seriously evaluate Trump's record. This link also violates WP:ELREG since these articles require a subscription to view.

Proposal C: remove the following external link:

• Talking About Donald Trump at The Interviews: An Oral History of Television

I don't see the dueness of this. This links to a nonprofit project that interviews prominent and non-prominent figures in the television industry. There seem to be only 17 interviews, each with an average length of only two minutes. I see no encyclopedic or historical value. If we have an article on celebrities' views of Donald Trump, this would belong there. DFlhb (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Remove all.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Remove all, latter two are random undue weight links and the first is just a guy being investigated for how many possible crimes begging for money. Dronebogus (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Remove all~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Removal all - GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Done, these removals seem uncontroversial. DFlhb (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)