Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 166

Archive 160

←

Archive 164

Archive 165

Archive 166

Archive 167

Archive 168

→

Archive 170

Include mention of Abraham Accords in opening section

The opening section of the article is heavily critical of Donald Trump, citing his controversial policies, controversial actions and failings. I am not disputing this, but I suggest that it may improve the article's balance and neutrality, to also mention successful aspects of his administration. The Abraham Accords are the main achievement I suggest; under the Trump administration's mediation, Israel normalized relations with 4 Arab nations: the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan. This was a significant development, creating diplomatic relations between key US allies and advanced economies in the region. It was also a key step closer towards ending the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Looking to build consensus. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times here, and the consensus has been that they are not relevant to Trump's bio. Zaathras (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

How an arbitrary pool of scholars and historians rank Trump is relevant, but one of his greatest tangible achievements from office isn't?

Now that the dust has settled a little more, this should possibly be open to discussion again. The current state of the article is imbalanced and everything that Wikipedia should avoid being. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

one of his greatest tangible achievements from office ? Lol what? The Abraham Accords were largely ceremonial agreements between states already in de facto peace agreements. Trump himself didn't even have a personal hand in any of it, until it was time to put pen to paper. It has no importance to this article, and is better covered elsewhere. Zaathras (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

A lot of this is your own opinion, on a contentious topic. I can see from the past archives that you have been quite active in promoting this view here. Something tells me that you likely do not apply similarly high standards of scrutiny to the successes done under other administrations - just the Trump one. Please do remember what Wikipedia is for.

We could debate about Trump's level of involvement in the Abraham Accords, but this is a red herring. Ultimately the Abraham Accords were a hugely successful accomplishment under his administration.

Just because it is covered in other articles about the Trump administration, does not neglect the importance of including it in the Donald Trump article, amid paragraphs extensively discussing his actions and policies in office. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a can of worms. In addition to having just about nothing to do with Trump, it would open the door to the RS narratives concerning his son-in-law's pandering and cultivation of the Saudi's that culminated in an otherwise inexplicalble investment in the young man's untested and undistinguished investment fund. The talk archives have repeatedly determined this Abraham bit is UNDUE for this page. SPECIFICO talk 23:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. May I ask you to clarify what you mean by "RS narratives"? Genuinely sincere question. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Something tells me that you likely do not apply similarly high standards of scrutiny to the successes done under other administrations - just the Trump one. My my, Whataboutism and casting aspersions in one go. Your stay here may be a short one. Zaathras (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

It's interesting that you chose to focus on one sentence, out of the seven wrote in my response, ignoring the more pertinent points. This tends to be known as cherry picking. Anyhow, it is clear that we shall disagree on this topic. I shall wait to see if any further consensus arrives. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Neutral Editor 645:

Provide reliable sources that back up your claims. Since no one has done so to back up any claim in this thread, be the first one to do so. If the Abraham Accords are truly one of [Trump's] greatest tangible achievements then it shouldn't be too hard to find sourcing.

Ultimately the Abraham Accords were a hugely successful accomplishment under his administration—according to who? To you? It sounds like [a] lot of this is your own opinion, or am I mistaken?

It's interesting that you chose to focus on one sentence, out of the seven wrote in my response, ignoring the more pertinent points. This tends to be known as cherry picking. It is not, and will never be cherrypicking to point out behavior that goes against enwiki policy. Cessaune [talk] 18:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The Accords, and Trump's personal involvement, are far less significant than some would have us believe. The agreement was not significant because the parties were not in conflict and it was an open secret they had been cooperating on various levels for years, they just didn't publicize it. Trump needed a foreign policy win going into an election year and this was a fairly easy one that his campaign and base could tout as worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. His direct involvement was negligible beyond telling Kushner to get it done, and even then, Kushner needed to pull a 180 (annexation of West Bank settlements) in his long-awaited peace plan he had released months earlier to get it done. Then Trump showed up for the signing ceremony photo op. It was nothing close to the Camp David Accords. soibangla (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Leave it in..if it`s the best he could come up with in 4 years w/e...he signed some half-hearted bill regarding ivory importation the first day when he was signing everything his handlers were putting in front of him qualifying it with " I don`t hunt " Anonymous8206 (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

We can't leave it in if it isn't in to begin with. Zaathras (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It was also a key step closer towards ending the Arab-Israeli Conflict. In light of recent events, simply ignoring the Palestinians for preelection photo-ops of people signing documents seems to have been a key step closer towards the current war. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Quite so, and the acceptance of various narratives boosting the purported significance of the cleverly-branded "accords" is symptomatic of the larger NPOV issues yet to be resolved on this article page -- in particular the portrayal of Trump as a successful businessman rather than a successful street-level media star. SPECIFICO talk 15:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Neutral Editor 645: I doubt you'll get a local consensus for such an addition. As for going the RFC route? That's up to you. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, GoodDay, stop suggesting RfCs when RfCs are not warranted. Cessaune [talk] 18:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I was responding to Neutral Editor, not you. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

You're missing the point. It's not helpful to suggest an RfC for every single issue, especially one with such broad consensus to not include. It doesn't matter who you're talking to, as the RfC is something we all collectively have to deal with. Cessaune [talk] 18:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Not discussing this with you, any further. Neutral Editor, can make their own choices. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Cessaune. In a one-against-many situation, launching an RfC after only two days of discussion is a waste of community time. And you don't get to pick who responds to you. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

See discussion, below. GoodDay (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, an RFC on this topic is probably warranted at this point. There have been at least 4 other threads about this in the last year and a half asking for some mention of the Abraham accords to be mentioned in the article [1] [2] [3] [4], and the last discussion that looks anything like an RFC was in early 2021 [5]. Over this time, 14 editors have expressed support for inclusion (Bob K31416, GoodDay, myself, Bill Williams, Chrismorey, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, Andrevan, Anon0098, Anythingyouwant, Pavlor, Berchanhimez, Szmenderowiecki, Chrisahn, HAL333, and now Neutral Editor 645) and 11 editors have expressed opposition (Zaathras, Firefangledfeathers, Space4Time3Continuum2x, Specifico, Crazypredictor, Slatersteven, ValarianB, Calton, Pincrete, Symmachus Auxiliarus, and soibangla).

Every discussion since 2021 has essentially been met with a couple editors saying "this is a settled issue." If every editor from every thread opened participated in a new RFC, consensus may look stronger than what we have from 2021, where only 12 people participated. If we go the RFC route and get a stronger consensus on this issue, I'd support adding it to the FAQ list as a reason to stop re-litigating this. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

There's repeatedly confirmed lack of consensus to include this. RfC would just waste lots of editor time and attention, which is increasinngly limited given the many AP recent events and developments. SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

There's repeatedly confirmed lack of consensus; there most certainly is not. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Instead of that comment, all you'd need to do is link to the consensus you think is affirmed. Please. SPECIFICO talk 03:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

You're right - lack of consensus to include isn't actually consensus to exclude. The latter is what there isn't. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Right, so thats why its a big waste of time. SPECIFICO talk 04:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

RFCs are intended to generate consensus in the absence of clear consensus, so... PhotogenicScientist (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you unaware that WP does not require consensus to exclude? SPECIFICO talk 16:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

PhotogenicScientist, the addition of the Accords to this BLP, would be acceptable to me. GoodDay (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Considering the fact that such a proposal has ended multiple times with a lack of consensus to include, why would an RfC be any different? Cessaune [talk] 04:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

An WP:RFC should attract more discussion than a regular discussion, would it not? Also, we could invite anyone who's had an opinion on the matter in the last 5 discussions to participate - get a holistic idea of consensus from all the editors that have expressed interest about this topic. 04:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC) PhotogenicScientist (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

What is the significance of the Accords for Trump's personal biography, per the majority of recent reliable sources? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

You cannot require editors to come here for no reason to repeat their views. You can see the entire range of views by reading the archive. That's why we archive past labors. What are you trying to say with "holistic"? Do you mean comprehensive? We already have that. SPECIFICO talk 12:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

So, to avoid running an RFC, you say we can just look through the archives to assess consensus. Alright then - there are two ways to interpret the 5 talkpage discussions on this article: 1) There has never been a local consensus to include this content, or 2) A majority of editors on the talk page agree that this content should be included. Why is it more fair to go with the first interpretation? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh hey, you and I were here last November, where we discussed that exact point: [6]. I mentioned that it's really weird to draw this WP:UNDUE line in the sand here.

We don't make that distinction at other points in this article (The Trump administration "water[ed] down the toughest penalties the U.S. had imposed on Russian entities" after its 2014 annexation of Crimea...; ...the Trump administration sanctioned 12 companies and 13 individuals suspected of being involved in Iran's missile program...). We don't make that distinction on the article for Barack Obama (In 2016, the Obama administration proposed a series of arms deals with Saudi Arabia worth $115 billion...; The Obama administration asked Congress to allocate money toward funding the Iron Dome program...). We don't make that distinction on the biographies of any other president, it seems (In February 1996, the Clinton administration agreed to pay Iran US$131.8 million (equivalent to $245.93 million in 2022) in settlement...; Reagan's administration continued discussions with the Soviet Union on START I. I just don't see a compelling reason why we wouldn't include it here. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Obama, Clinton, Reagan: any problems with their articles need to be discussed on their Talk pages. I just removed the sentence on the sanctioning of the suspected collaborators with Iran; it's the same sentence as in the Presidency of Donald Trump article, and that's where it belongs. Watering down the penalties on Russia: this belongs in his personal bio because of Trump's history with Putin. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

And PhotogenicScientist just reverted my removal. The point is consensus #37: Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. Neither one of these is likely to. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

You conveniently left off the second half of consensus #37: If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. I think Trump's first dealing with Iran in his presidency is rather notable for his presidential legacy. It affected the tone of 4 years of US-Iran relations. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's borderline or debatable? Six years later, are there reliable sources saying what the lasting impact on his life or long-term presidential legacy was? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

We're debating it now, aren't we? The consensus item does not specify "debatable by whom." Just that if it's debatable, it doesn't apply.

Moreover, Trump's policy toward Iran in his presidency was one of increasing tensions - one of the mechanisms by which he did this was sanctions. Here's an NYT article that analyzes Trump's Iran policy, shortly after the killing of Suleimani, which mentions his sanctions in the context of his broader strategy: He took the United States out of the nuclear agreement and imposed sanctions against Iran — which some see as setting off a crisis that continues today — on claims that it was “on the cusp” of acquiring nuclear weapons “in just a short period of time.” Also from that article, there's this quip: How Confusion Fell Over America’s Iran Strategy... Part of the uncertainty is specific to Mr. Trump. Which sounds pretty personal, for this personal biography of his. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

We're debating it now, aren't we? If memory serves, I'm the author of that sentence. I doubt it was my intent that unanimous agreement was required for application of the consensus item. If memory serves again, the sentence lacks a strong connection to the underlying discussion; it just seemed like a reasonable thing to add at the time. Had I known the word "debatable" would be used in this manner, I would have been more circumspect about its use. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Cessaune regarding the proposition that the Iran sanction had "limited impact on anything", Trump's policy of escalating tensions with Iran, of which sanctions were a part, is noted as having contributed to the crisis that followed the Assassination of Qasem Soleimani. See the NYT source above. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

If it's important in that context then the article should say so. Cessaune [talk] 01:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

There are 3 paragraphs and numerous additional mentions of Iran in the article. Exactly the perfect amount of Iran. SPECIFICO talk 02:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

WP does not require consensus to omit. There has never been anything close to agreement for inclusion. No, RfC will only attract a waste of time. You posted a long list of the participants in past rejections of this content. There's no reason to think that yet another rehash is going to "attract more discussion" that will produce a tidal wave of support to overwhelm the well-established rejection of such content. SPECIFICO talk 11:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC) Consensus is not a majority vote count. WP:STICK SPECIFICO talk 16:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@PhotogenicScientist:, I say you should have an RFC & put this include/exclude argument to rest. After all, there can only be two possible outcomes. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Users need to read WP:ONUS, it is down to those arguing for inclusion to get consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Therefore, I'm curious as to why WP:ONUS has been ignored, concerningt the other major topic being discussed. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

RfC for inclusion of Abraham Accords in article

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

---

In an attempt to end the never-ending proposals for including the Abraham Accords in either the article or the lead section, I propose an RfC. A mention in the article body would be a prerequisite for inclusion in the lead. I am not supporting or opposing its inclusion, but I believe that the following proposal would be the most likely to be supported by consensus, being minimal and based on lead content from the Abraham Accords article.

Should the Israel subsection of the foreign policy subsection be updated to include the bolded sentence below? (Edit: Proposed addition in bold.)

Trump supported many of the policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Under Trump, the U.S. recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, leading to international condemnation including from the United Nations General Assembly, the European Union, and the Arab League. In 2020, the White House hosted the signing of the Abraham Accords, normalizing the foreign relations of Israel with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.

Onetwothreeip (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC) 10:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Neutral Editor 645,Objective3000, PhotogenicScientist. Cessaune [talk] 22:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Why ping? •Cyberwolf•talk? 22:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Grammar issue: Who or what normalized the relations? Current phrasing says that it was the WH (by hosting the event). Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC) Clarify. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

:Support. Probably one of his greatest acheievements. DanRayy (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Account blocked indefinitely for vandalism before they posted here. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Survey

• Improper RfC. The first two sentences are the current text of Donald_Trump#Israel. The proposal is the addition of the last sentence ("hosted the signing" — that was about the extent of it (photo-op), formalizing would be better than normalizing, "foreign" is redundant). Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 11:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  How is that improper? The addition is bolded. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  The RfC is alright. A piece of additional text, clearly marked, is submitted for consideration and comments. -The Gnome (talk) 12:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  RfC's attract users who are not previously familiar with the details and context of the page content. The RfC, even if valid or necessary, should have been worded with a straightforward question on the table, to wit:

  Should the following text "..." be appended to the mention of the Abraham Accords in the "..." section of the page

  SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  @SPECIFICO: AFAIK, RfC questions are "community property", not "owned" by their original authors. Any editor can improve them, even involved, and clarity should never be controversial. I've made an attempt to improve that and I don't think inclusion of the existing text does any harm provided it's clear that it's existing text. It does provide some potentially useful context: Is the proposed sentence DUE in such a short subsection? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  I agree, but it all depends on which OP feels like complaining to which Admin, etc. Thanks for at least mitigating the damage. The other missing piece is that the horde of prior commenters has not been summoned. SPECIFICO talk 17:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  Then summon them. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  Not my job. OP ordinarily does that. SPECIFICO talk 01:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Improper RfC abuse of the RfC protocol, which is not meant to bludgeon views that have failed to gain support.@Onetwothreeip: 15:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC) Please remove RfC formatting, banner, and notifications. SPECIFICO talk 15:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  A properly worded, formatted and posted up, RfC is, by definition, impossible to denote "bludgeoning" activity. And by "posted up" I mean that if an RfC were to put across the same essentially question on a subject that was recently decided, then, yes, we'd have a problem. Has there? If not, nothing is amiss. As to your argument about "RfC's attract[ing] users who are not previously familiar with the details and context of the page content," I'd say that RfC's should actually aim to attract such users! Lord knows, extended and heated discussions about a subject, "controversial" or not, always need outside, more detached input. -The Gnome (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  @SPECIFICO: If I removed the RfC formatting then it would cease to be an RfC. I have never requested any addition of content to this article regarding the Abraham Accords, and I do not support it. This is to put an end to endless discussion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  I doubt that I'm the only one puzzled by your theory of ending this silly little discussion by expanding and prolonging it for at least another month. Folks are allowed to propose things on the talk page, and when they do not achieve a reasoned consensus -- as this proposal had surely failed to do -- the disussion subsides and goes away. There is no requirement for a consensus not to include any proposed content. And you are always free to ignore discussions you feel are pointless rather than offer your services to exterminate them. I really think it would best be withdrawn, but that's up to you at this point. The only reason editors are responding at this time is because you have more or less forced a vote. SPECIFICO talk 23:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose so what was its impact, this text is just a list entry. Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  A full analysis of the accords, including their significance or impact, is better found at their article: Abraham Accords. Inclusion of events that happened during Trump's presidency on this article are meant to be limited to summary-level description - including links to appropriate articles and sub-articles is the better way to provide more information. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as it has been shown time and time again, in past discussions the "Accords" were between non-warring nations, had no significant geopolitical impact, and Donald Trump himself had no involvement into the process. Also Close this RfC now as inherently disruptive. This has been discussed ad nauseam - Feb 2023, Nov 2022, July 2022, March 2022, May 2021. This is a dead issue, and continuous rehashing is unwarranted as consensus to exclude is crystal clear. Zaathras (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support - mentioning the Accords in this BLP. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  This is about the suggested text. Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  I know & support its inclusion. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  This is not an election, and votes without reasoned explanation may be disregarded. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  Evaluating each editors' stated position, will be in the hands of the RFC closer. I'll accept the decision of this RFC when it's closed (in early January) & hopefully the entire include/exclude argument will be settled. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  I know previous discussions on this have been interminable, and you might not like re-litigating your opinion. But it's true that a simple comment of "Support" means very little in an RFC. Providing even a bit more justification would add strength to your position to the closer. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 04:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not one to over elaborate on my positions in RFCs or RMs & am always mindful of WP:BLUDGEON & so I leave the RFC evaluation in the hands of the closer. PS - Besides, other 'support' editors are making strong arguments. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support. The Abraham Accords "marked the first instance of Israel establishing diplomatic relations with an Arab country since 1994," as the article puts it. This was a significant, perhaps major, change in Middle East relations. In the context of the article's section on Israel and U.S. foreign policy, the proposed sentence informs the reader of a verifiably important event occurred during Trump's presidency. -The Gnome (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  Sources: The significance of the Abraham Accords has been disputed in this discussion ("the Accords were between non-warring nations, had no significant geopolitical impact"). Proving that, in fact, they were quite significant is a rather trivial exercise:

  First, some 'primary' sources: The State Department; the United Arab Emirates; and Israel.

  Then organizations, think tanks, etc: American Jewish Committee, "landmark", "game changer"; Middle East Institute, "opened new opportunities for defense and security cooperation"; Middle East Institute of Japan, "Jews have the potential to play a valuable multicultural role in the UAE and Bahrain"; Samuel Neaman Institute for National Policy Research, "even in the Mideast, where passions are inflamed, interests can on rare occasions gain the upper hand"; Modern War Institute, West Point, "important development"; The Hoover Institution, "greater than the sum of its parts"; Indian Council on World Affairs; The Wilson Center, "a three-year success"; etc.

  Media: The Jerusalem Post, "historic agreement"; The New York Times, "major diplomatic agreement"; The Washington Post, "reflected a real political exhaustion with the Palestinian cause on the part of some political elites in Arab countries"; etc. Even media criticizing current Israeli actions, accept the Accords' significance, e.g. Al Jazeera. -The Gnome (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  That is a truly dreadful list of references, comprising statements by parties at interest, contrmporaneous reports later revised or reversed by the sources, and publications that do not stand up to the books subsequently published and cited by SpaceX and me in the comments section. These sources do not support any case for inclusion. SPECIFICO talk 19:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment While I am not supporting or opposing the proposal, I will explain why I justify this wording to be most modest proposal and the most likely of any proposal to succeed. The proposal uses language directly from the Abraham Accords article, and does not credit Donald Trump with any active role (such as "brokering"), only that the signing was hosted, implicitly by him, at the White House. I decided to specify that it was foreign relations being normalised, as opposed to economic or other relations. If editors believe that there should be even more content about the Accords in the article, they should support the proposal, and if they believe that there should be no content about it at all, they should oppose it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support per the other supporters’ explanations above. The accord opened the door to wider economic cooperation, and investment. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. This addition doesn't demonstrate why the Accords are important/notable. It doesn't tie the Accords to Trump. It doesn't even mention Trump. At least relating to this wording specifically, this isn't something we should include in the article. Cessaune [talk] 22:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  The Accords are demonstrably "important". One has only to peruse the relevant lemma here. (I offered a sample of sources here, as well.) And they were signed during Trump's presidency, with Trump's Foggy Bottom actively involved, and in his presence. What's there to dispute the merits of mentioning them in the foreign policy section, Israel subsection? -The Gnome (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  You're misunderstanding what I said. I did not say that the Accords weren't important. I said that [t]his addition doesn't demonstrate why the Accords are important/notable. The fact that we as enwiki editors can demonstrate why the Accords are notable is separate from the fact that none of the proposed texts actually do demonstrate why the Accords are notable. The proposed wordings belong in the Presidency of Donald Trump article, not here IMO. Cessaune [talk] 00:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  So, you would support some mention of the Accords in this article, just not the proposed wording? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  Depends on if editors are willing to demonstrate how the Accords are specifically notable to Trump the man, as opposed to just Trump's presidency or the Trump administration. So far the vast majority of support arguments refer to the notability as it pertains to the Trump administration, and forget that this is not the Trump administration article. Cessaune [talk] 15:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  Not every tidbit included in this article needs to have a full analysis of its importance. MOST of the information in the Presidency section is not analyzed or given reason for import. Your criteria, if applied to all events in his presidency, would lead to a full-scale rewrite of the section. I do think the proposed wording could be better, but it does a better job than omitting mention of the Accords entirely - best not to let perfect be the enemy of good. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Cessaune, we do not demonstrate "why the Accords are important/notable" by adding the information on the Accords to the article. This was never the intention and cannot be the intention! Demonstration of notability is exclusively proven and verified by sources. And I have already provided a small sample of about a dozen such sources, out of a myriad out there, which demonstrate conclusively and irrefutably the Accords' notability. Please take a look and see what you make of them. Having certified the Accords' notability, the question arises as to whether to insert information about them here. Well, a lot of items concerning or related to Trump's presidency are important enough to mention also here. The Accords, being a "game changer" in Middle East politics, per sources, certainly merit a mention here. All the noise about their signing being "only" a media event is unfounded. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

This is fundamentally mistaken. Yes, NPOV requires all information in any article to be assessed for its importance as evaluated by its prominence in high quality Reliable Source references. And again, folks should stop discussing what's significant for his presidency -- it is settled consensus that this page includes content that is significant for his personal life story and in which he has been personally instrumental. Those are the factors that should be addressed here, and clichés are the enemy of the good and no excuse for us to dilute the focus of the article content. SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• it is settled consensus that this page includes content that is significant for his personal life story and in which he has been personally instrumental Could you provide a reference to this "settled consensus?" I don't see this anywhere. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Friendly advice: Don't hold your breath. -The Gnome (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Actually, what I wrote is fundamentally correct, and that's speaking in literal terms. [WP:POLICY|Wikipedia policies]] on providing multiple, reliable sources that explicitly verify the information imparted, i.e. Abraham Accords are notable & significant are irrefutably satisfied. Against that wall of solid, uncontestable proof, we get red herrings such as "this page includes content that is significant for his personal life story and in which he has been personally instrumental". What a valiant attempt to distract and derail, honestly! The very long, and quite rightly very long, section on Trump's presidency includes a plethora of items that are blatantly unrelated to the man's "personal life story" , as well as items in which he was involved simply in his capacity as President. A President is not, and one cannot emphasize this enough, "instrumental" in every diplomatic or government action. End of story. -The Gnome (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

P.S. One has to salute the appearance of a newfangled "argument," the one about the threat of diluting the focus of the article, which is also just a lot of chaff. -The Gnome (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support - the Accords are a notable aspect of Trump's presidency with sufficient weight for the one sentence proposed. NPR described the Accords in June 2022 as "one key pillar of Donald Trump's Middle East policy" and a "huge rupture from recent history in which Arab nations had made it clear they would not negotiate with Israel..." It also noted that the Biden admin has embraced the Accords. A fact noted by AP as well. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 22:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - Sorry but I just don't see how hosting this signing or the signing itself or the accord itself had any historical effect or why it belongs in the this bio. Maybe in a child article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  Proof that the Accords were and are still]] significant has been shown above. At to why mention of their signing belongs in "this biography", the answer is simple: Irrespective of what one thinks of Trump and/or his tenure, this happened during his presidency, with his State Department actively involved. It's truly a trivial matter. -The Gnome (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support because this feels like a no-brainer item to include - it's a notable happening of his presidency for certain. Most prior Oppose rationales hinge on the argument that this article should make no mention of the Accords because they are mentioned at the Presidency of Donald Trump article, pretty much in line with consensus item #37. However, from the numerous sources that have been discussed in the discussion above (and in prior ones), it's apparent that the Accords were notable enough to have a lasting impact, at the least on Trump's presidential legacy. Perhaps I'll be back to collect some of these sources once again (as I've done before) to link here, but for now, I'll note that the Accords get a mention from Foreign Policy in their analysis of Trump's presidency [7]. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 05:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that the current wording is the best way to present the information, though. I like this proposal from Iamreallygoodatcheckers a while ago:

  In September 2020, Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, and two foreign ministers from the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain signed the Abraham Accords, which formally normalized relations between Israel and the two Arab states.[8]

  PhotogenicScientist (talk) 05:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  This wording is better. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  ... which one? The proposed RFC wording, or the one I just pasted? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  One you just proposed Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 01:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Trump wasn't a signatory. Netanyahu and bin Zahyed al Nahyan signed the agreement between the UAE and Israel; Netanyahu and Al Zayani signed the agreement between Bahrain and Israel. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  He's not a "signatory" in the diplomatic sense of the word, but he did sign it - his signature is right there below those of the others on both of those documents. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Right after "Witnessed by". Ronald McDonald's signature would have had the same effect — none. It was just a show. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Equation of the importance of a sitting US president and Ronald McDonald. Bold. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Nah, just equation of the importance of the witness signature of a sitting US president and Ronald McDonald on those particular documents. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 18:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: There is an erroneous argument in some of the suggestions here, to the effect that the Accords have failed to deliver what they promised and, therefore, they're not important enough and do not deserve a mention in Trump's biography. That is false, as false as arguing that, since they too failed, the Munich Accords do not deserve an article in Wikipedia.
  There might also be in play some kind of erroneous view of the whole issue. I hope no one opposes the inclusion of the Abraham Accords on the basis of their personal dislike of Trump and abhorrence for his actions as president. I truly hope so! -The Gnome (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  No, the principal objection is that this was a Trump media event and that the underlying relations and documents signed for TV had nothing to do with Donald Trump other than the insinuation of his family (and its ongoing business interests) into Mideast diplomacy and commerce. SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  If your objection, or anyone else's, is based on the claim that the Abraham Accords were merely a "media event" then that claim is easily refuted by the extensive and widespread preoccupation with said accords undertaken by almost all major media in the world, as well as by think tanks and strategy institutions of established credentials from most big world powers - not to mention what the signatories themselves have emphatically stated. None of those sources can be seriously labeled as Trump mouthpieces. "Media events" have a very short shelf life. The Abraham Accords were a "game changer" in the Middle East, to use just one term, among many, from those used in our sources. The claim that the Accords was merely a "media event" has not been seriously proffered except for obvious partisan reasons. -The Gnome (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  Well, that's a new one. Of my dozens of flaws, nobody has previously accused me of not reading or following the sources. See my several comments here about sourcing. And anyone who takes a look at our Abraham Accords article will see that it's largely Original Research and sources misrepresented or off-topic appended to original research. SPECIFICO talk 17:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  If the article is flawed, we should correct it. In the meantime, the significance of the Accords is beyond doubt, per the plethora of extant sources, a small sample of which I quoted here above. Did you follow up those? Do you dispute their relevance? Or perhaps their reliability? -The Gnome (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  Hosting the signing of an agreement between third parties was a media event. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  The Camp David Accords signatories were Egypt and Israel. The UInited States hosted the signing ceremony and witnessed formally the signed documents. No one has yet disputed the legitimacy of including the Accords in Clinton's biography. Their signing too was a "media event"! But neither the Camp David Accords nor the Abraham Accords were 'only media events. They were both "game changers." And the U.S. actively mediated between the parties. See here for America's "weeks of intensive mediation to broker the final deal." -The Gnome (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  That document is not RS for anything. You don't appear to know the what, where, when or how regarding the Camp David Accords which had nothing to do with Mr. Clinton. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  You're conflating the 2020 Camp David Summit with the 1978 Camp David Accords. I don't know enough about the 2020 Summit to have an opinion on it. The Camp David Accords are a peace treaty between two countries that had been repeatedly at war for 30 years, and Carter was actively and personally involved in the peace process for more than a year, cajoling both parties back to the negotiations a few times. Quoting the 2002 Nobel Prize press release: During his presidency (1977-1981), Carter’s mediation was a vital contribution to the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, in itself a great enough achievement to qualify for the Nobel Peace Prize. The Abraham Accords are formalizations of the normalization of relations between Israel and several Arab states Israel had never been at war with, and Trump's involvement was the photo-op. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support per above. ~ HAL333 15:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Inclusion of this media event - a ceremonial signing which amounted to a command performance by presidential election candidate Trump - gives UNDUE emphasis to the Trump media claim that he was involved in the establishment of these relationships. In fact, the parties had been warming relations for years and the insertion of Trump's son-in-law into the codification of these relations was consequential mainly as a factor in the solitification of young Kushner's financial interests in the region. If editors will give a careful read of our Abraham Accords article, they will see that most if not all of the article text crediting Trump or his Administration for these artfully-named "accords" is sourced to Trump's own employees. SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  Comment Most of the "support" !votes here do not address the only pertinent issue -- the issue which has led to this failing consensus time and again in previous discusssions: What does this have to do with Trump the man?. General anodyne statements "obviously important" "highly notable" etc. do not provide policy/sourcing based rationale to support such !votes and should be eliminated by whichever poor soul arrives to close this rehash. SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  What does this have to do with Trump the man? isn't really a hard criteria to make a decision on. The only thing remotely close to this is consensus item #37, which states that presidency events can be covered in this article as "summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy." The notability of the Accords as covered by plenty of RS here place them squarely into his presidential legacy. If you don't want to take my word for it, check out Foreign Policy's assessment of Trump's presidency from a foreign policy point of view.

  Not to mention "If something is borderline or debatable", consensus item #37 doesn't even apply for excluding content. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  See this. No one foresaw the unintended consequence of that sentence. When it comes down to it, (1) at this article, any content of any significance is debatable, and (2) "borderline" is so subjective as to be useless as a guide. Emphasizing the letter over the spirit undermines the value of the consensus list and, imo, borders on wikilawyering. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  That consensus item got support as written in its discussion. This despite the fact that people did oppose at the time because "decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis" or "what constitutes borderline or debatable will be endlessly debated." On this article, quite uniquely, the consensus list is often used to shut down discussions where "strong consensus" has been shown before. When you have what amounts to local guidelines like this, the wording matters quite a bit. The letter of the item is quite clear, even when the spirit of it is not and subject to discussion. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  the wording matters quite a bit. I totally agree, and we do our level best to make the letter and spirit one and the same. That sentence was not my best performance. the consensus list is often used to shut down discussions where "strong consensus" has been shown before. I'm not sure what you mean by that. We at this article do exhibit a reluctance to repeatedly revisit an issue merely because an editor shows up who disagrees with the existing consensus, not because of any significant change in the situation surrounding the issue; in such cases, shutting down discussion is a feature not a bug. The article is not unique but unusual in its ability to remember consensuses as the editor mix changes; I call that continuity. Anyone who feels the system is too inflexible should note the number of supersessions in the list, many on fairly major issues. This is getting pretty meta and a collapse may be in order with the option of continuing the meta within the collapse. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Your Foreign Policy cite said this about the Abraham Accords in October 2020: The move, which the White House heralded as "the dawn of a new Middle East," praised by Democratic and Republican lawmakers alike as a rare spot of good news. Still, some experts questioned whether Trump was claiming credit for diplomatic dealings that were long in the works; the UAE and Israel, for example, had been cooperating on security matters behind the scenes for years. "You’ve got to give them some credit for the Abraham Accords," said Emma Ashford, a foreign-policy expert with the Atlantic Council, referring to the deal by its official name. "This isn’t an earth-shattering change in foreign policy, but getting some of the Gulf states to come out and admit they were actually more friendly with Israel, that's something that's an achievement." Yay - direct flights between Israel and Dubai (currently suspended due to war). Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  I get that you're trying to chip away at the notability of the Accords themselves It's pretty clear you think the Accords aren't very notable - they involved more than just a direct flight route between Israel and Dubai, after all - but they quite plainly are already notable. Whether as an influence for good or bad, the Accords are still being talked about for their impact on relations in the Middle East, by plenty of reliable sources. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  That's 1. a personal attack, 2. irrelevant, and 3. denying our NPOV policy. All unnecessary. SPECIFICO talk 19:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  I feel that my comment was not "particularly offensive or disruptive," so blasting me for a PA isn't particularly helpful to discussion here. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Tip: never characterize someone else's opinion without simply quoting them, or be damn sure you're hitting it on the nose. Cessaune [talk] 22:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Also, referring someone to WP:NPA#Responding to personal attacks after they have accused you of a personal attack is... weird, and likely to be construed very negatively. Cessaune [talk] 15:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  A personal attack? What offends you? •Cyberwolf•talk? 19:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  There was no pa •Cyberwolf•talk? 20:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Comment #2 If any further emphasis on this signing event is to be placed in the article, we would also need - per NPOV - to include additional content that reflects RS narratives of this event as another in a vast array of empty Trump media stagings in part based on his personal need to mimic the appearance that his presidency was similar to other conventional prediencies - in this case Jimmy Carter's role in the Camp David Accords. SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. (Do some of the commenters here think that WP doesn’t mention the Abraham Accords?) The signing ceremony was a photo-op. As Muboshgu wrote in May 2021, "the signing of documents does not in and of itself demonstrate 'historical impact'". Trump touted "the peace deal" as "a testament to the bold diplomacy and vision of President Trump, and he is honored to be considered by the Nobel Committee [nope]. President Trump will host the Israeli and Emirati delegations for a signing ceremony of the Abraham Accords on September 15 at the White House". Most of the sources Gnome cited don’t even mention Trump, and when they do it’s something along the lines of "brokered by the Trump WH" or "[a]nother reason for [other countries’] caution [to sign on] was that the leaders of the United States and Israel at the time, namely, President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu, persistently advertised the Abraham Accords as their own achievements. President Trump hailed the Abraham Accords as a historic achievement during his run for re-election in the November 2020 presidential election". Also, only two of them were written after October 7 ("Oct. 7 also sounded the death knell of the Abraham Accords as initially championed by the Trump administration and latterly embraced by the Biden administration"). Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  In other words, Space4Time3Continuum2x, you are saying that a source that reports some major event involving U.S. foreign relations has no place in the biography of the president during whose watch the event occurred unless the source contains the name of the president. And if present in the article, that source should be chucked out. Is this truly a position you want to support? Is this something you'd want to see adopted as a rule for Wikipedia political biographies? A new interpretation of where the buck stops? Seriously. -The Gnome (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  Huh? You get all this from me writing "photo-op without historical impact"? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  I could be mistaken of course, but it doesn't sound as if you've surveyed the RS accounts of the announcement, signing, and substance of the Abraham accords. Have you looked at our article page. I started to look through it and found that much of the narrative there is derived from self-serving press releases and other statements by the Trump administration and its spokesmen at the time of the election campaign. In fact there is plentiful RS detailing how little was accomplished by the so-called Accords, which codified existing relationships while trading away various bon-bons to the signatories. When you say "per-Gnome" or per-Socrates or whoever, your view takes on the collinearity of a parallelogram without internal structure to stand on its own. It would be more helpful and strenghten your !vote to hear what sourcing and policy-based rationale you have to include this sentence -- you do understand the RfC is about a single sentence? -- in this article. SPECIFICO talk 23:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  "Per-Gnome"?! Where did I ever write "per Gnome"? (What are you reading?) The only instance I use here the word "per" is to point out to sources, i.e. "per sources" or "per source XYZ." Which is actually implementing Wikipedia policy. Nothing to do with geometrical convolutions. -The Gnome (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support Is this information well sourced? Yes. Is this an important aspect of the article subject (as demonstrated by reliable sources)? Yes. Is the proposed text short and written in a NPOV manner? Yes. Editorial decisions about what to include and what not (due weight) are one of the hardest tasks for an Wikipedia editor, because our own biases play a great role here. If I take my bias towards the article subject aside, the proposed addition is due for inclusion. Now if you excuse me, I will rather edit other articles than those about some American politician. Pavlor (talk) 06:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support as per The Gnome. Also, as a  Comment:, it appears that most "Oppose" !votes are along the lines of "it wasn't actually a big deal"; "it was just a photo-op"; or (arguably the worst one) "it's already been decided". The first two are either the editor's subjective view of it, or a very weak WP:SYNTH providing sources about the state of conflict and implying significance through that. As for the "There's already consensus", the only marked RfCs provided aren't what I would say are landslide consensus; Consensus can change, to try and shut down an RfC only because a razor-thin consensus was formed over 2 years ago, especially seeing the engagement in the current discussion, seems short-sighted and against the ethos of Wikipedia. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 21:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support honestly it is absurd to me how people so obsessed with hating on Donald Trump (I obviously dislike him as well, but most of this talk page is just trying to bash him) are going to pretend as if this is not something worth including in the article. It was historic in creating new economic, military, and political ties between not only Israel and the countries it signed with, i.e. United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco (which merits inclusion as well), but also nations like Saudi Arabia that are beginning to have more open relationships with Israel. If this doesn't merit inclusion as substantial foreign policy, I don't see how recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights is somehow more relevant even though this changed quite literally 0 foreign relations with Israel, including our own. I fully agree that this may not be the best wording of the proposal, but if anything that is because it should mention more about how expansive the agreement is. It is hilarious to me for editors to claim that the negotiations were not a result of Trump even though it is clear to any foreign policy observer that the Accords would not have occurred under any other president. You cannot both dislike Trump for being too pro-Israel (e.g. Jerusalem/Golan recognition) and also act like he was not the reason for this deal occurring. Bill Williams 23:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Bill, most of what is written in the so-called Accords predates Trump's presidency or even his candidacy. Are you aware of that? SPECIFICO talk 23:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  And the recognition of Jerusalem was "written" into U.S. law for over 20 years before Trump actually followed through with what Congress required. It is irrelevant if negotiations had been underway for a long time, and if people had "written" anything before, the actual agreement went absolutely nowhere until Trump made them a priority. The normalization of relations was under Trump and because of Trump, and clearly that is notable for an article about Trump. Bill Williams 23:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  No, it's not that there were talks underway and Trump closed the deal. Read the RS reporting. The relations were already in place. And this poll has nothing to do with Jerusalem. SPECIFICO talk 00:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  You fail to understand a basic point in response to your irrelevant mention of previous "relations," which is that it does not matter if they had been negotiated previously, if those negotiations went nowhere. Relations are official recognition between two countries, which didn't exist. There were no military and economic ties between the two countries. So you are mentioning some minor, under the table cooperation, meanwhile there is now billions of dollars in public deals being made. To compare these two is not a reasonable analysis of foreign policy, like saying if Taiwan declared independence and formed relations with the U.S. it wouldn't be substantial because we already had informal relations. Bill Williams 15:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  Sounds like you don't think there is such a thing as premarital relations. Well, fine. SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose change/support status quo. This seems to be a lot of fuzz and hot air about not much. This conversation is so far off the level of what a reasonable Wikipedia metric should be for inclusion. Does anyone have sources that the Abraham Accords are a significant accord in Arab-Israeli conflict history? Or are they simply the most recent accord that we happen to be talking about, and because it's Trump the man, we're having an, as usual, extremely overblown, self-obsessed, narcissistic, cartoon animal circus performer carnival barker huxter showman go of it? If someone will respond to this comment with a succinct, 3 sentence, maybe 4 sentence exposition of a specific source or 2 that states that Abraham Accords was 1) relevant to Trump's personal biography as pertaining to major presidential accomplishments and something he plans to run on or make central to his personal story, 2) relevant to historian or biographer views of importance to Trump's life or presidency, and 3) relevant to the Arab-Israeli conflict history, or some combination of 2/3, I will change my view. Andre🚐 00:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Andrevan: This meets at least prong 2 and 3. See my NPR source above saying the Accords were a key element of Trump's Middle East policy (prong 1) and marked a noted change in relations between the signatories (prong 3). Here's Politico calling the ceremony hosted by Trump "historic". Here's a scholarly piece that says "this event marked the most important foreign policy accomplishment of President Trump's term in office and doubled the number of Arab states recognizing Israel." Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 07:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  You are not addressing the issues under dispute: What is so important about the media staging that it should be added to this page. What sources credit this to Trump personally or any personal involvement other than the bolstering of his family's post-presidency financial wellbeing? SPECIFICO talk 19:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  Did you actually read that Politico piece? It's all political puffery and campaign drivel by Trump and his flaks. Not to mention the ignorant and casual, now tragic, statement that this media event would pressure a settlement with the Palestinians. SPECIFICO talk 08:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, I agree with SPECIFICO about the Politico piece. That piece is from 2020 and it's a bit of a puff piece. It works fine for factual accuracy and for information that tells us what happened that day. Ie, it's more of a primary source (not a fully primary source, but not a great secondary analysis). The Fred Lazin 2023 is closer to what I had in mind. In my view that satisfies my argument of point 2. So, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, I am going to give you point 2. However we still don't have 1 or 3, in my view. Andre🚐 01:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  Why does NPR not satisfy prong 1? It's dated to 2022. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 01:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  It satisfies point 2 - importance to Trump's presidency. Not point 1 that it's part of his biographical story or something he personally intends to run on or make part of his personal story. Also, it's more of a contemporary piece about Biden than an article about Trump's presidential biography. Andre🚐 01:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  "In addition, this accomplishment is quite personal for President Trump and his closest family." - Marshall Center This scholarly source also reiterates the fact reported in multiple reliable source -- secondary, academic, etc. -- that the Accords are considered to be a significant foreign policy achievement during the Trump Administration. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 04:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  Think tanks are not what we consider "scholarly sources". Once again you beg the question -- Donald Trump vs. "Trump Administration". SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  Hmm. That one is getting close, Iamreallygoodatcheckers. Its actual subject in the next 2 sentences is Trump's family member, Jared Kushner. If we had a little more insight into Kushner's relationship with Trump and the Abraham Accords, I will give you point 1. Maybe in Kushner's or Ivanka's book, even. Andre🚐 04:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed, if AA ends up in this article, we would also need to contextualize with the personal business interests of Trump/Kushner - which have been an integral part of mainstream RS discussion and ongoing coverage of their mideast activities. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  The sentiment in this discussion (and past ones) has been that Kushner's involvement has been an argument to say "it has nothing do with Trump then." When in reality, as seen in the source, the success of the Accords is personal to Trump the man as it's related to family and his son-in-law. Do what you will with that narrative in the Marshall source. To me, the fact that this is significant to his presidency, which is intrinsically part of his own legacy, is sufficient for the one sentence. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm actually saying the opposite. I'm saying if there was some information about how Trump and Kushner talked about the Abraham Accords specifically, beyond what's in the Marshall source which certainly suggests it but is a little vague, that would be enough for me to tip it into the personal column and satisfy why it belongs here. Something about how Trump's relationship with Kushner and the Accords were related to his personal life or biography, absolutely makes it relevant in my view, and is not an argument against including this. Andre🚐 06:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  Trump announced in 2017: "We want to create peace between Israel and the Palestinians." Because: "It is something that I think is frankly, maybe, not as difficult as people have thought over the years." How: appoint his real estate developer son-in-law to make the deal. Kushner's bold new plan recycled the 1979 Drobles Plan to surround Palestinian towns with Jewish settlements, creating little "bantustans". Kushner, the "architect of the recently released U.S. Israeli-Palestinian peace plan", called it "Peace to Prosperity: A Vision to Improve the Lives of the Israeli and Palestinian People". Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 18:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  I also think the Accords meet the 2nd and 3rd criteria. For 2, it will be hard to provide opinions from biographers and historians, since those will pretty much be found in newer books, which aren't freely accessible - but Foreign Policy sees the Accords as notable enough to mention in their overall analysis of Trump's presidency, and it's hard to get more credible than FP on the internet. For 3, here's at least Responsible Statecraft and The Intercept discussing the impact of the Accords in the Middle East, especially as they relate to the current war in Gaza. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  The Foreign Policy link is thin sauce. A brief article that quotes one person's lukewarm opinion and attributes nothing to Trump's personal actions. You ignore the issue that's been agreed to be the deciding factor -- is this relevant to Trump personally and not his bio. And as a thought experiment, look at how slimly we attribute the one million American COVID deaths to Trump personally, even though many RS and scholarly studies attribute about half of those to his personal negligence or malice. SPECIFICO talk 19:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  I believe that the Responsible Statecraft and Intercepte piece definitely does go to point 3. We're getting somewhere. However, I think it probably still doesn't touch on point 1 and I'm not sure on point 2, as I agree it's a little on the thin side, but we I think satisfied point 2 above with the Lazin piece. However we still have a thin case for all three points. Feel free to continue. I consider point 1 largely untouched, and a solid punch on point 2 and one on point 3, so I'm still at an oppose for now. Andre🚐 01:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  Respectfully, you said that if the Accords could be considered "relevant" to your criteria, that would be enough. Now it seems we need to get to "very relevant." Why do we need to demonstrate so much notability for a single sentence inclusion on this biography page, anyway? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  Well, PhotogenicScientist, you summoned me here, so I'm offering you a chance to get my support for the proposal. If you'd rather, I can oppose on principle and throw up my hands and be intransigent. That's not really my style though, which is why I prefer thoughtful probing and engagement, or at least I am attempting to approximate something that can be described as such. I certainly think that there is a case being made and I will absolutely change my position if I judge it over my personal view of where the line lies. It's not an exact science, but an art. Andre🚐 04:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  Could you explain your personal criteria more - why they would result in exclusion of the content? In your initial oppose, you seemed more concerned with the length or the substance or the character of the discussion itself than the proposed content. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  Well, it's all of that, the substance and the character to be sure, but also the length, but also the importance of it, but to me, if you're going to write in the header of "Donald Trump" that "Abraham Accords" is a primary aspect or chiefly associated with him, and not just padding his resume, we need to illustrate the 3-pronged test I laid out and honestly, it's closer than I thought it would be, since I probably have a prior belief that it is fluff. Is there a rejoinder to SpaceTime or shall we let it lie? Andre🚐 22:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  It's not going under any important "header" - it's going in the "Israel" subsection of the "Presidency" section of this article. Which in the grand scheme of things, is a rather small place to add a wikilink to an existing article. And honestly, I'm not sure what S4T3C2x is getting at with that comment. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  I wrote header, and I meant lead, that is just another brain fart. As you can tell, I have a few misfiring neurons at the moment. And that was going off the header of this talk section (opening section) which, at a glance, I misinterpreted - but my test still applies to the body, though much less stringently. Andre🚐 23:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  If your test applies less stringently, do you still think the proposed sentence is not worth including in the body? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: (sigh) We are not here to debate the consequences, the outcome, or the developments following the Abraham Accords. We are not here either to discuss the notability of the Abraham Accords! That ship has sailed. A myriad of sources from across the planet testify in the affirmative. All we are here to discuss in this RfC is whether or not the suggested sentence merits a place in the Trump bio, section foreign policy, subsection Israel. That is all. It is quite sad to see people still arguing about the agreement's trivially established notability and denouncing it as a "media event." (As if there was ever in the modern era a significant agreement between nations that was not a "media event"!) If this had not happened during Trump's watch, with American mediation still "crucial" per the words of the signatories, I submit that no debate would be necessary, much less an RfC. So, can we please, pretty please, with sugar on top, get back to serious work? -The Gnome (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  If it were true that such White House media extavaganzas are commonplace, that would be exactly why we would not include one in a biography. Please don't be offended, Gnome, but notability is not at issue. I've addressed that above and yet you repeat it -- apparently without having scrutinized our highly flawed article page and sourcing on the event, so that you might offer substantive comment. Above, similarly, you asserted something or other about the Camp David Accords apparently without even the most basic knowledge of the subject. And now -- again -- you refer to the political promotion and ego gratification of the Trump orbit, extensively and near-exclusively quoted in the bulk of RS praise, as if that sad feckless abuse of Trump's office should be elevated by this encyclopedia. If we draw special attention to this media event, it opens the door to RS discussions of the Trump-Kushner family's personal interests in the mideast, to the spectacle of a command performance that showcased Netanyahu and Trump, two leaders on thin ice politically, now on the verge of imprisonment, and a document that contrived an unnecessary bonus signature line for Trump to deploy his Sharpie. If this ceremony is added to the article, its context must also be added for NPOV, unduly lengthening the content and violating WEIGHT. SPECIFICO talk 13:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  Still fighting the good fight, I see, to denigrate the established significance of the Abraham Accords. singatories to it call it a "game changer" but Wikipedia editors know better, I guess. -The Gnome (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  Easy boys, no fighting in the war room. Andre🚐 01:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  One boy (maybe) and a girl named Clark, rumor has it. "Easy guys" works better. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure why I wrote boys, the quote I think is "gentlemen" Andre🚐 01:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room". Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose not a meaningful foreign relations accomplishment and of no importance to Donald personally, also contemporary sources that lauded it as a grand accomplishment should be consigned to the same dustbin assigned to Dewey Defeats Truman. with a few years to assess the impact, the present day opinion is quite different. It’s Time to Scrap the Abraham Accords, Assessing the Abraham Accords, Three Years On. ValarianB (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  The Abraham Accords, per the myriad of sources out there, a small sample of which I quoted above, have been extremely significant. They are still being cited in Mid East analyses. Present opinion only affects the assessment of what the Accords achieved or didn't achieve; not their notability. Once notable, always notable. The Munich Accords, which failed miserably in their objective, are thankfully still in Wikipedia. There must be better arguments our there than the one abt throwing the agreement to the "dustbin." Start an AfD proposal for the Abraham Accords and see how that goes. -The Gnome (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  and I quoted sources to say they were not significant. please don't misrepresent the sourcing in a contentious topic, that does not lead to good outcomes. also, no one mentioned notability here, so kindly do not fabricate what i said. ValarianB (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  Now, Mr. Gnome, in addition to your strangely uninformed comments about the history of Mideast diplomacy and peace accords, you again demonstrate that you do not attend to the difference between WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NPOV, the latter of which is under discussion and the former of which is irrelevant to this discussion. SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support Significant signing of Abraham Accords should be at least mentioned once on this page somewhere given its impact and forms part a key part of his administration's foreign policy in the region.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - This article is 428k (!!!). This doesn't rise to the level of significance of the information already in there. We should be pruning specific details of his administration, not adding more. Regarding arguments like key part of his administration's foreign policy in the region - yes, that's why it's covered in multiple articles already. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  Word. That was the intent of consensus #37, which has proven to be too vague to be very effective. On the other hand, the article is the same size as in May 2019, so it could be worse. Watch what happens as we approach the 2024 election, and keep watching if he gets re-elected. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  The article will keep growing regardless of the election outcome or the outcome of his 4-5 major prison-sentence-carrying trials and sentencings, and of course, he will eventually die as well and the article will grow even more to cover that event and its legacy. And along the way we should, as Rhododendrites says, cut stuff that hasn't stood the test of time - but in my view, now is not the time to cut stuff. Andre🚐 01:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  Size of the article has been brought up in past discussions, but not here yet. The article currently is ~428k bytes, and the Presidency section is ~223k. The addition being proposed weighs in at 154 bytes. This would represent a 0.069% expansion of the Presidency section, and a 0.036% expansion of the article.

  Is so minor an addition really a good enough reason to completely exclude all mention of the Accords in this article? Especially considering the other arguments above to their notability, or their relevance to Trump's presidential legacy? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  If this article were expanded by that teensy amount for everything on the page that's mentioned, or adjacent to, a WP:NOTABLE topic, the article would bloat up bigger than the Hindenburg. I note that your last sentence ignores the arguments and concerns presented in opposition of the inclusion. SPECIFICO talk 15:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  It's true that the article's bloat largely results from hundreds or thousands of applications of exactly that "it's just a little bit" logic. We don't say a lot about anything (much). By the way, the proposed addition would increase the Israel subsection's word count by 52%. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  And of course fans of Internet Irony will recall that it is OP of this goofball RfC, @Onetwothreeip: who has often called for cuts of significant detail from the page merely due to the overall page length.#Mandrusstotherescue. SPECIFICO talk 17:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  Not helpful. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  Also not true. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  The only way to address the bloat is to change the fundamental nature of what we include in this top-level biography, which is about the man not the president. That was the goal of #37, but it has been met with resistance from editors, both regulars and drive-bys, who view the article as a political battleground and want their viewpoints placed where they have the highest visibility. They don't care (and/or understand) much about good article structure, size issues, etc., so here we are.

  (And #37 takes a piecemeal approach, not the slash-and-burn that would be required. As written, we would have to conduct protracted discussion about each little removal. That would be entirely impractical and it would take decades to achieve the goal.) ―Mandruss ☎ 19:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  One problem with this "not one more byte" approach, and drawing a hard line here, is that editors will likely to continue coming here asking why the Abraham Accords aren't mentioned. Or why any other single piece of content couldn't be added to the Trump article. I fully agree with you, consensus item #37 should be used judiciously to keep the Presidency section of this article summary-level and a manageable size. And by and large, the section here could and should be trimmed. However, the omission of even a single sentence of this particular presidential event strikes me as incredibly odd. The more notable stuff can stay - the rest can go (to another article). But how are the Accords not notable enough to include? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  how are the Accords not notable enough to include? If you're asking me specifically, I haven't taken a position and don't intend to. I use my semi-retirement as an excuse, but in truth I never got much into such political-content issues anyway. See my UTP for my full reply, which went very meta very early. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose With Gaza being bombed daily, touting Trump's "achievements" in securing peace in the Middle East would now seem farcical. There are much more important matters to be added to the lead, such as the looming plans for a 2025 Trump dictatorship and the end of American democracy. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 11:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  No one here uses this information as a means to promote (or "tout") a Trump "achievement." I'd be among the first to object to such an attempt! The Accords were signed during Trump's watch and this alone makes them unquestionably worthy of mention in the prez section. As to developments after the signing, these are not for us to judge. We are not here to make assessments but to relay information based on sources. And a veritable avalanche of sources proclaimed at the tine the Accords as "quite significant," a "game changer," etc. If, like the Munich Accords, the aims and the expectations of the Abaham Accords were not met, this takes nothing away from the event's notability. -The Gnome (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  P.S. your suggestions about inserting in the article Trump's plans for a dictatorship are a clear case of a biased approach to Wikipedia. But Wikipedia is not a forum for promoting political ideology. -The Gnome (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  The AccordsOrders to repaint Air Force Onewere signed during Trump's watch and this alone makes them unquestionably worthy of mention in the prez section. -- Agree or disagree. You're baiscally just saying that your view is obviously correct. SPECIFICO talk 18:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  Sounds like WP:OTHERSTUFF. And Gnome has already extensively explained above why they believe the Accords are worthy of mention. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  Gnome has extensively shared his view, and what you call "otherstuff" refutes it. SPECIFICO talk 20:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'd hardly consider your single counterexample here a refutation of Gnome's position, which they've detailed not only in this comment but numerous ones above. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  Do you have enough sources that support the claim that repainting Air Force One was a "significant", "game-changing" development in History? For which, the United States as an entity played a "crucial part"? Because these are some of the words used in the sources I already provided, and in detail too, in this thread! Sources whose content, in every response you since made, you have chosen to ignore. You simply paint over them a generic, unsubstatiated dismissal. And now you take the path of denigration, e.g. that I'm just saying my view is correct. This is a truly sad state of affairs. -The Gnome (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support This received significant coverage and is a slam dunk for due inclusion in this biography. It is not our our job to decide if the the event was useful or a PR campaign. That's too much like original research. This part of the presidency is significant enough to be mentioned here. Nemov (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support This is something that has perhaps taken on more significance and garnered more coverage from RS in the years after the fact. It's an enduring part of his presidential legacy and should be mentioned.LM2000 (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Survey (continued)

• The closure of the above discussion was contested at AN, where I found consensus to reopen the RfC. Please continue discussing. Sandstein 10:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose not a meaningful foreign relations accomplishment and of no importance to Donald personally. This article is already quite weighty and could do with some consolidation rather than coat-tailing. TarnishedPath^talk 10:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support We have an entire article on this, so the idea that this is "not a meaningful foreign relations accomplishment" is IMO a terrible argument. It clearly passed the notability guidelines to have its own, in fact quite lengthy, article. It's less clear that it can be credited to Trump personally rather than his administration, but that doesn't matter, because we regularly mention things a president's administration did in their articles. There are enough sources on this that it is very much WP:DUE to have at least a short mention of it in Trump's article. Loki (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar: I just started to go through that article and think it may have been plagiarized from or by one of the people involved in the Accords. See my remarks at the Abraham Accords talk page. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support - noticed I was pinged when I logged in though I'm quite inactive now so I don't expect my opinion to be given the weight of those who may be more versed in recent policy changes. The Abraham Accords are generally considered one of, if not the most, significant foreign policy achievements of Trump's presidency. Other presidential articles do not distinguish between things that the president directly did versus major achievements that they took major part in directing their staff to achieve. As one example, Barack Obama has multiple paragraphs about his foreign policy that merely review what his staff did or tried to do under his direction. Go back even further and you'll see that this follows at every president's article for which we have reliable sourcing as to who did what. Ultimately, people saying it's not relevant to Donald personally should consider that it is, as he considers it one of his biggest achievements while in office (especially since he never forced Mexico to "pay for the wall"). Great deference needs to be given to precedent at other articles here such that Wikipedia isn't being viewed as withholding achievements from one President's biography just because editors have a bias against it being "significant" enough, or because the President didn't "have a big enough impact on the actions". Overall, this is no different than how I viewed before - the only reason not to include it here without also refactoring every other biography of a president on Wikipedia is because people think it makes Trump look good (which it doesn't) and want to avoid making him look any semblance of good on his biography. In other words, bias. I likely won't be able to reply to replies here as I am virtually never on WP anymore, but I think my view is clear based on my past inputs to this topic and hopefully I've explained my view well enough above. I'm sure someone who wants to can feel free to add links to policies/essays that support this view - as many did above and as I did in past discussions. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support - User Berchanhimez ("User/say hi!") nailed the reason for opposition with perfect accuracy: the only reason not to include it here...is because people think it makes Trump look good (which it doesn't) and want to avoid making him look any semblance of good on his biography. Exclusion of content on the basis of partisan feelings and home-brewed assessment of events flagrantly violates Wikipedia policy on neutrality and original research.

Supporters in this discussion have extensively documented reports and commentary in RS that characterize the Accords as important, significant, ground-breaking, etc. Opposers parry with dismissive personal evaluations and analysis, and so far, to my knowledge, have not offered a single specific RS citation that supports their dismissive views. However, even if opposers can show multiple RS that support their views, such documentation would only further confirm the overall noteworthiness of the Accords that BAL and NPOV tell us justifies inclusion of this single sentence. The idea that a single sentence about the signing violates NPOV is absurd on its face.

This article misses no opportunity to describe and document negative aspects of the Trump presidency in a panoply of topics, whether in policy contradictions or adverse results and responses to actions, initiatives and policies. This event—signing of the Accords with Trump as MC—could be construed as a rare positive that happened during his term, and thus it remains a target for exclusion. My support for inclusion is unrelated to anything I think about Trump; it is based on the fundamental working of Wikipedia: we are prohibited from determining inclusion or exclusion of content based on our politically biased feelings about people or our personal analysis of events. We are mandated to determine content based on descriptions in reliable sources, while applying the principles of due weight and balance. By those measures, inclusion of the sentence is a no-brainer, and always has been.

While I'm at it, I offer the following modification of the sentence proposed by the RFC to relate the issue directly to Trump, who is the subject of this article:

"In 2020 at the White House, Trump hosted the signing of the Abraham Accords, normalizing the foreign relations of Israel with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain." DonFB (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support - The Abraham Accords themselves are very well covered by scholarship [9], but the test for inclusion here (WP:BALASP) is whether the sources for this article -- a biography of Trump -- include this as a significant aspect. The sources for this article are biographies of Trump. Abraham Accords was in 2020, and I was only able to find one post-2020 biography of Trump (by a reliable publisher), which is Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America by Maggie Haberman. She mentions Abraham Accords on p. 427. It's a small sample size but it's good enough for me, for now. When more biographies of Trump are published, if they don't mention the Abraham Accords, then I'd vote to exclude it. But for now, include. I'm not particularly wedded to the specific language propsoed, but the Abraham Accords should be mentioned/linked somewhere where the article talks about Trump's Israel/Palestine foreign policy. Levivich (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

  Kudos for checking a source that is not contemporaneous news and punditry. We need to be doing a lot more of that here. But Haberman mentions hundreds of events, incidents, and initiatives related to Trump that are not NPOV DUE for this article page. It's helpful to review our Abraham Accords page and see how weakly even that page content is sourced to independent third party references and how the best sources there, AP et al, covered the personal connection to Trump as one of his many promotional extravaganzas. We could include that NPOV framing on this page, but it's best IMO to draw on the RS that discuss his promotional prowess and proclivities more generally instead of recounting various otherwise UNDUE instances. SPECIFICO talk 17:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, and I agree about looking more at high-quality Trump bios rather than punditry to determine NPOV, but I disagree that "Haberman mentions hundreds of events, incidents, and initiatives related to Trump that are not NPOV DUE for this article page" -- in fact, I think that's exactly backwards. What's DUE (or what's an WP:ASPECT that should be included) is determined by what's in the sources. If it's in the sources, it should be included in the Wikipedia article. All Trump biographies include hundreds of events, etc., and those should all be included in Wikipedia's Trump biography, because it's a summary of the other Trump biographies. Any event, fact, etc. that is in multiple (or most) Trump biographies should be in the Wikipedia biography. With a relatively recent fact -- like 2020's Abraham Accords -- we don't really have a lot of recent Trump biographies to look at... but in this case, 1 out of 1 Trump biography includes it, so we should include it. If it was 2 out of 3 or 3 out of 4, I'd say the same (and same for any other fact that was in 2/3 or 3/4 of Trump bios... same for any other bio, or any other article on Wikipedia). Levivich (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

  But to winnow the hundreds of mentions times dozens of high-quality books and articles, i.e. many thousands of bits - hundreds of which may arguably be NOTABLE for their own WP articles - we need substantial emphasis in numerous such high quality mainstream sources. That's not been offered here. Instead we have lots of !votes by (frankly, sorry) less widely-read editors who do not demonstrate that such a test has been met. I'd be in favor of more general coverage of Trump's highly effective promotion and his staging of numerous spectacles and illusions, of which this was one instance. SPECIFICO talk 19:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

  Personally I don't think NPOV says the standard is substantial emphasis but rather proportionality. I wouldn't suggest we have an entire section for the Accords, as that would not be in proportion to the RSes. But the proportion of RSes (post-2020 Trump bios) that include the Accords is 100% (albeit that's a small sample size, 1 out of 1). That source spends a paragraph on it; in my view, that's a very minimal amount, and suggests this Wikipedia article should include it, but in a minimal way, i.e., one sentence or less. In my view it could be just "Trump's foreign policy initiatives included X, Y, Z, and the Abraham Accords" -- just a few words. But more than zero. Levivich (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

  Well, it certainly looks as though we’re heading toward proclaiming that the WH/Trump's hosting normalized the foreign relations of Israel with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. Sigh. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

  There's nothing stopping you from gathering scholarly articles about the Accords from Google Scholar and demonstrating that "normalizing the foreign relations of Israel with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain" is not an accurate summary of the scholarship, if that's the case. For my part, I'd support inclusion of it merely in a list of foreign policy initiatives, or any sentence that accurately summarizes the cited RSes (which should be scholarship, of which there is plenty). Levivich (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

  1 out of 1 is, respectfully, useless. Cessaune [talk] 03:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think we're up to 3 out of 3 now, with two more sources mentioned by other editors below. Levivich (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  It wasn't an American initiative. The Emiratis proposed it, using Jared as the messenger to Netanyahu. SPECIFICO talk 04:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'd upgrade my vote to a "strong support" based on the additional sources put forward since my initial vote. I still think the most weight should be given to sources that are biographies of Trump (not about his presidency) written after 2020 (when the Abraham Accords happened). However, there are very few such books--maybe just one, Haberman's, which spends a paragraph on it. Since then, the following additional sources have been mentioned in this discussion:

  1. The Divider, a book about his presidency, spends most of a chapter on it (starting on p. 504)
  2. I Alone Can Fix It, a book about the last year of his presidency, spends about 2 pages on it (pp. 269-271) (and calls it "a rare foreign-policy achievement")
  3. Foreign Policy from Sept 2022 did a retrospective, calling it "arguably one of the Trump administration’s few foreign-policy achievements"
  4. This WaPo column today mentions Trump's foreign policy on Israel ("Trump’s policy on Israel, meanwhile, amounted to ..."), and it lists the following things: support for Bibi, recognizing Jerusalem, closing the Palestinian consulate, and the Abraham Accords. Donald Trump#Israel only mentions two of those things.

  Seems clear that the post-2020 sources consider the Abraham Accords a significant aspect of his presidency, specifically his foreign policy, specifically his Israel foreign policy. It's an WP:ASPECT that should be included in the Israel section of his bio (and the "lasting test" of consensus 37 is demonstrated by the fact sources are still writing about it years later). Levivich (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

"Bibi" refers to Netanyahu. See my reply to Malerisch on consensus 37. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose More than enough about them at Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration, not needed here, especially as Morocco wasn't really much of an accord and Sudan turned out to be a damp squib. Selfstudier (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

  Your approach is at odds with the current consensus (see item #37 above) regarding presidential material on this article - "Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy." Just because it is covered in another article does not mean any mention is "not needed" here. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support per Levivich. In addition to Confidence Man, The Divider: Trump in the White House, 2017–2021 (2022) by Peter Baker and Susan Glasser contains a detailed discussion of the Abraham Accords in Chapter 26: Secretary of Everything (pages 505 to 524), so it's hard to believe that this is so insignificant an aspect of Trump's presidency that it shouldn't be mentioned. Yes, The Divider is a book about Trump during his presidency rather than his entire life, but articles about US presidents should absolutely cover the major events of their presidency (about half of Confidence Man is devoted to Trump's presidency), and these books show that the Abraham Accords meet that bar. Malerisch (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

  The Baker/Glasser book you cited does not take 20 pages on the Abraham Accords. Have you seen the book or just the linked googlized preview? And the discussion that does appear in that book is mocking the signing as a hamfistedly staged political event by Trump trailing in the election polls. Context matters, NPOV etc. SPECIFICO talk 15:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  I have access to the entire book. At the very least, pages 505 to 507 and 519 to 524 are directly about the Abraham Accords, and many of the pages between those two sections are about related information (Kushner and Israel). I think that's enough coverage for at least a sentence about the Accords to be WP:DUE, especially since I'm not aware of any other comparable RSes (besides Confidence Man) whose scope covers at least the entire Trump presidency. To be fair, Baker and Glasser seem to have a mixed appraisal of the Accords—they call it both a genuine breakthrough in the region and far less significant than the peace agreement Trump had promised to forge between Israel and the Palestinians. And I think their view of the Accords is less relevant for WP:BALASP than how much coverage it gets.

  I get the argument about Trump's lack of personal involvement—as the book notes (and as Space4Time3Continuum2x quoted below), Trump was no more involved in this foreign policy achievement than he had been in his big domestic policy initiative, the first-year tax cuts. However, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act not only gets a whole paragraph in this article but is also mentioned in the lead, so it's odd for the Abraham Accords to go unmentioned. Malerisch (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act not only gets a whole paragraph in this article - the paragraph (four sentences, plus the first one in the next paragraph about the tax cut’s effect on the national debt) is the summary-level text on a policy that had a huge impact domestically. "Summary-level" does not mean we have to restrict mention to one sentence for the purpose of providing a Wikilink to another page. Summary-level on the Accords, IMO, needs to state what they are, what Trump falsely claimed they were, and what their actual impact was. That’s at least three sentences and should include at least one post-October 7 cite. The arguments for inclusion in previous discussions started and ended with his biggest foreign policy achievement. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. Saw this due to AN and the strange earlier closure. The argument that the Abraham Accords were a lot of hot air is a non-starter - so what? Even if we accept they were indeed a nothingburger, for the sake of argument, plenty of things that are irrelevant distractions can be worthy enough to include if they're discussed enough. See Ford's Whip inflation now buttons for a particularly egregious example — which is indeed covered in the Gerald Ford article. SnowFire (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm in agreement with this point. The fact that something failed/had little impact (which in this case hasn't even been adequately demonstrated) is irrelevant. Cessaune [talk] 23:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support Even a stopped clock is right twice a day and these were significant foreign policy accomplishments. They should be mentioned in the article. Not persuaded that they belong in the lead. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support It should be mentioned in the article because he was president at the time. Whether or not you support Trump, this an important event that occurred during his presidencey that should be included in the interest of accuracy. Coalcity58 (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  By that standard, we would also mention the solar eclipse and dozens of other ceremonies and events. SPECIFICO talk 18:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think it's clear from CC58's remarks, he meant that it was a component of his presidency. An eclipse was not and is awfully pedantic. Buffs (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  I guess you haven't seen all the RS reporting on the eclipse. SPECIFICO talk 17:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support inclusion per the above, Levivich and others + my remarks at WP:AN. The Accords were a notable component of his presidency initiated at his direction. WP:BADGERing from some needs to cease. Buffs (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose; the standard for inclusion in the personal biography of a president is extremely high and this just doesn't make it; there's insufficient coverage from neutral high-quality WP:RSes supporting the idea that this is significant to Trump's personal biography. This is the sort of blow-by-blow nitty-gritty detail that belongs on the dedicated page for his presidency, not here. I want to particularly emphasize how paltry and unconvincing the list of sources presented by The Gnome above is; first they link WP:INVOLVED parties touting their own action, then a truly massive number of think-tanks, where only the most WP:BIASED ones actually use language describing it as significant, and finally, tepidly, a mere three (!) news sources; and again, the only one of those to actually describe it in particularly significant terms is the WP:BIASED Jerusalem Post. The New York Times source is useless because the only part Gnome could find that (even then, tepidly) made the accords sound significant was the word "major" in the headline, which is unusable per WP:HEADLINES; and the best they could find from the Washington Post doesn't say anything about significance at all. Now, are biased sources sometimes usable? Sure. But for WP:DUE weight in particular, it is extremely important to not rely heavily on sources biased in a single direction in order to try and argue for inclusion. The fact that someone who seems to have been making their best honest effort to find sources that could be used to support inclusion could only come up with that paltry and unconvincing list and had to rely so heavily on WP:BIASED sources to pad it out it serves as the best argument available that the sourcing that would support the necessary level of importance to include this in Trump's personal bio simply doesn't exist. --Aquillion (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support: Per WP:N and WP:RELEVANT. (Abraham Accords) The action is supposed to lead to significant collaborative, (§ Aftermath) economic, (§ Economic impact) and environmental (§ Environmental impact) impact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urropean (talk • contribs) 15:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support. First of all, it's legit. Lots of things happen that the president did not personally work on. Presidents are busy. They get credit and discredit for things that happen on their watch. Dumb, but true, let's not make an exception here. Second, everybody here hates Donald Trump so let's bend over backwards to be fair. We all have biases that we may not even be aware of. Check your personal ideologies at the door. I note that Operation Warp Speed is apparently not even mentioned on this page. Good grief. Warp Speed was real successful, got a vaccine earlier than expected, saved many lives, and it was on his watch. Not only that, but I believe he even had something to do with with it. He put pressure on the FDA to speed it thru I suppose. He did sign the order to sell only in America first. Yeah I know about drinking the bleach and the cruise ship denial and how he later turned anti-mask and I think anti-vax and all the other stuff. Hitler built good roads, should we not mention that just because he's Hitler? Warp Speed not being in here makes me suspicious that the article is biased anyway. Which I would not be surprised but I wouuld be dissapointed. (Also FWIW IIRC thes accords were the reason Hamas attacked Israel, to mess them up, probably. So, super important in history). Herostratus (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

It seems to me that as we have not had an RFC on this there is no harm in having one. Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I really don't understand the strong opposition to starting one. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The objections were stated quite clearly above, so whether you understand is not really the issue here. SPECIFICO talk 16:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I opposed starting it when there were like eight editors involved and only two of them (one, the OP, had not respoonded to pings and seems to have abandoned the discussion) supported addition. Cessaune [talk] 14:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

As I pointed out, there had been many discussions prior to this one in the last 1.5 years. All considered, this issue attracted 25 editors (14 supporting and 11 opposing), though not in a centralized discussion. An RFC seemed a good way to get everyone in one place and hash out consensus. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I consider each discussion on its own merits. It's fine if you want to look at the whole history, and you may be on to something there, but, at least on this specific talkpage, no one has ever done that as long as I've been here. Cessaune [talk] 15:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging other users who've voiced an opinion on this in one of the 5 recent(ish) talk page threads. Feel free to disregard: @Bob K31416 @GoodDay @Bill Williams @Chrismorey @Andrevan @Anon0098 @Pavlor @Berchanhimez @Szmenderowiecki @Chrisahn @HAL333 @Firefangledfeathers @CrazyPredictor @ValarianB @Calton @Pincrete @Symmachus Auxiliarus @Soibangla PhotogenicScientist (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

being pinged to Talk:Donald Trump is no courtesy ;-) Andre🚐 05:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I just spit out my coffee, Andre. ~ HAL333 15:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

"Civilized life cannot be sustained without hypocrisy." Ian Buruma, courtesy of Merriam-Webster. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Example of what's being ignored In ascribing due weight to article content, we need to examine sourcing and substance of any supporting references. this citation from our WP Abraham Accords page is a case in point. The claim of Trump's involvement, published in RS, turns out to be one of Trump's own coterie making that claim. What support !voters should be doing is to back up their view with independent third-party assessments that Trump personally facilitated any of these arrangements. While it's verified that he staged this White House event -- even though US was not a signatory to anything and the photo shows him standing empty-handed among the signatories -- the issue for this biography page is whether mentioning this inconsequential command performance in DC gives UNDUE weight and the misimpression that the accords themselves were due to Trump.And here is another RS, pointedly describing Trump's presence only in terms of a self-serving campaign promotion. SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Here are the undeniable facts, as supported by sources, facts which oppose !voters should dispute with contrary sources: The Abraham Accords themselves, dated during Trump's presidency, were significant; the United States, during Trump's presidency, were involved in "weeks of intensive mediation to broker the final deal," per the exact words of the participating Israeli side (see here) [my emphasis]; and they were signed during Trump's presidency. And that is all that matters when it comes to have the Accords in this article, in a section about US foreign policy regarding Israel. -The Gnome (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

That is just repetition of various prior comments that do not address the central point made by numerous opponents of this gratuitous addition to the article: You have not provided affirmative sourcing that demonstrates the weight of mainstream views that Donald Trump personally did anything other than stage a media event and use his position as POTUS to insinuate his family and its interests into the signing of these largely ceremonial condifications of the previously-developed thaw in relations. In other words, quite contrary to your claim, you have failed to establish any case for WP:N. SPECIFICO talk 20:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Specifico, you are imposing your own standards. Nothing in our guidelines requires what you are demanding ("independent third-party assessments that Trump personally facilitated any of these arrangements") in order to mention it in a biography. As numerous people have pointed out, your standards are nonstandard for many heads of state including US Presidents. While I get that's what you want, it is not required. Buffs (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The top of the executive chain in a presidential republic is ultimately responsible for everything that happens, good or bad, during his watch. (I already made a reference to where the buck stops but I guess it went unnoticed.) You invoke a non-existent argument. Even if president Reagan was minimally involved, or even not involved at all, with the formulation of the Star Wars plan, we'd still credit him for it in his biography. (Or debit him, as the case may be.) There is absolutely no need to demonstrate that "Donald Trump personally did anything". My emphasis. A cursory glance at presidents' bios here in Wikipedia shows that they correctly filled with info on events that the prez did little if anything "personally" about or for them. Which is why I commented that this whole teapot storm is about Trump, rather than the Abraham Accords. -The Gnome (talk)

No matter what the result of this RFC. We'll have that result, to use to shut down any further discussion on the matter, in the new year & beyond. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC) Some have brought up that adding the Accords, will go against attempts to shortened the BLP. If ya'll want to shorten this BLP? then remove the bits about Trump's 2024 campaign Fascism/Vermin content. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

There may well be a valid discussion to be had about what to remove to make this article more manageable. That is not however a good argument to add something., Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I hope then, that the too long/too short argument will be discontinued in this RFC. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Why? If someone thinks the article is already too long adding something makes that worse, thus is a valid argument for exclusion. Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Because, it would also be a valid argument, for the preceding discussion. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Per sources, and irrespective of my personal assessment of his performance, Donald Trump may possibly pass into History as the worst person to ever have served as U.S. president. I think the article may actually be short of what such a unique distinction merits. -The Gnome (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything? Cessaune [talk] 16:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

TDS? Buffs (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Procedural oppose: I will try to address issues that I have noticed. The RFC is long so somewhat complicated to glean. Adding anything to the article, without addressing the elephant in the "article", means there really shouldn't have been a RFC at this time.

• 1)- Article needs reducing or splitting. It seems there are 17,466 words of readable prose. At 15,000 an article "Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed."
• 2)- The article has, including the short opening lead paragraph, seven paragraphs. Someone stated if the article is expanded then the lead would too. That is not actually true but even when the article was stretched to 16,000 words there should have been talks concerning size. I saw where this was mentioned but apparently ignored. However, the last paragraph in the MOS states: As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead. Certainly there really should not be any more "expansion" considering the current size.
• 3)-The prominence and importance of the Abraham Accords is overshadowed somewhat by the Biden administration's use of "Normalization agreements", however, the aftermath of the Accords created several first in history so "should be in the article. Although important, I do not think the Accords are a "defining legacy" that should be in the opening paragraph of the BLP and certainly not before size is addressed. -- Otr500 (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused by your comment here... the RFC is about adding the proposed sentence to the Israel subsection of the foreign policy subsection, not the lead. If you think it should be in the article, that would be a "support." Also, you should move your message to the 'Survey' section above - this section isn't for bolded !votes, just discussion. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I've removed their initial bullet as this section is not a bulleted list. Per WP:REFACTOR I think any editor could move that to the Survey section, but per your comments it doesn't appear ready for prime time. And I think the ship has sailed for procedural opposes; the amount of participation to date constitutes acceptance of the RfC's existence. I think I've seen an RfC shut down once or twice in my 10 years here, despite many attempts to shut one down. There, that's three "I thinks" in four sentences, demonstrating my humility. :D ―Mandruss ☎ 06:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Otr500 would you mind clarifying your comment above? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@ PhotogenicScientist: Sorry but I have been sick. There were comments above, that include from the beginning opening statement in the "RfC for inclusion of Abraham Accords in article" section, A mention in the article body would be a prerequisite for inclusion in the lead., so is why I mentioned it. I can only surmise either you missed this, or I missed where is was deemed not to be

"a prerequisite for inclusion in the lead."

I actually find that inclusion, normally, should be allowed. However, there are issues that should have been resolved before the article was assessed B-class, and certainly before discussions and an RFC on adding yet more content.

On 6 December 2023 Slatersteven mentioned size. It was shot down by GoodDay because it seems size is only important in not important in a section that has the intent of adding yet more content.

I placed this in this section for a particular reason. I would support "EXCEPT" not in the present shape of the article.

I have no horse in the race and was (Summoned by bot). If my comments are not important then ignore them. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The only way in which the lead was mentioned was in reference to the way this whole Talk page thread was opened; the OP mentioned we should put a mention in the lead. The discussion evolved quite a ways since then. The RFC proposal, word for word, is: "Should the Israel subsection of the foreign policy subsection be updated to include the bolded sentence below?" This RFC is not about adding anything to the lead.

The concern about this article's size is a valid one, but imo carries less weight than appropriately describing an article subject, to which end I think a short sentence about these Accords would help. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, if the Accords had happened during the Biden Administration? I would've supported their addition at Joe Biden's page. GoodDay (talk) 09:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC) Report: Kushner involvement in Abraham Accords gives him inside track to be Secretary of State in second Trump administration

Nepotism. Reminds one of JFK's appointment of RFK as attorney general. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

What is the similarity. I see no RS that describe Jared as qualified for the role. Did you read the linked article? Are you unaware of RS accounts of RFK's qualifications and activities as Attorney General? SPECIFICO talk 16:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (continued)

Shouldn't this RfC be reopened IAW Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Restarting_an_RfC? The only people aware of the closing having been vacated are the editors involved in the complaint at AN, which wasn't mentioned on this Talk page until it had ended. And I only noticed Sandstein's edit because I went through the edit history looking for the reason the blue RfC was gone. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

No objections. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I have extended it two weeks. Nemov (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Maggie Haberman's mention of the Abraham Accords in her book "Confidence Man" was cited by Levivich above, as a reason for supporting inclusion. For everybody who was also denied access to the preview by Google Books, here are the 3.5 sentences mentioning the Accords (it's not an entire paragraph): Kushner was also forging ahead with an ambitious plan to normalize relations between Israel and the UAE and Bahrain, known as the "Abraham Accords". Efforts to move forward with a broader peace deal had not succeeded, so Kushner pushed on other fronts. Advocates eventually viewed the Accords as a significant achievement, bringing change to the Middle East and refocusing alliances against the threat presented by Iran. (Kushner was aided on [sic] the effort by some of O'Brien's National Security Council Staff; coz Kushner was otherwise engaged, trying to get a security clearance. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Haberman cites this NYT article for "to normalize relations". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for that. The book discusses Chief of Staff Kelly's efforts to corral Kushner's impotent efforts in the Mideast upon reviewing intelligence reports from multiple countries about how easily Kushner could be manipulated to their will. The Emirates' initiative to formalize their relationship with Israel is portrayed as having fallen into Jared's lap. There's no narrative of Trump's actions except to have the benefit of his ceremonial insinuation of himself to claim an achievement for his administration.

  Another high quality source is the Leonnig/Rucker book I alone can fix it (p.269 ff) which is dripping with disdain for the staging of the signing at the White House with Netanyahu, desperately trying to avoid Israeli prosecution for corruption, found the perfect partner in the presidential candidate Trump, who assembled an impressive horde for the show and deployed horns and cymbals. Trump announced that the Accords had laid the new foundations of Mideast peace, while a "witness" line was added to the official document to permit Trump to pitch himself as a signatory.

  See also, RE: Kushner positioning himself as Mideast peacemaker-w/o-security clearance here. SPECIFICO talk 23:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x and SPECIFICO: Your comments are misplaced in this section. Suggest moving them for the sake of organization, and you have my permission to remove this comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I defer to you or SpaceX to move both. SPECIFICO talk 00:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I would happily refactor, but I'm not going to guess which of four subsections was the intended context, or whether Space4T intended to reply to someone. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I misplaced my comments. They were intended for the Talk:Donald_Trump#Discussion_(continued) section (keeping in mind goodDay's "do not bludgeon or rebut in the 'survey' section") but, after reading the discussion at AN and the latest !votes, I'm going to move everything into a comment in the Talk:Donald_Trump#Survey_(continued) section. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Moved from Talk:Donald_Trump#A_reminder section. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding some excerpts from Baker/Glasser's The Divider, cited by Malerisch above. The chapter is about Kushner's Chickenman white-winged warrior exploits (he’s everywhere, he’s everywhere). Pg. 505: It is not the landmark agreement ending generations of conflict over the West Bank that he and Trump had promised, but in an unspeakably grim year of disease and domestic unrest it was by far the most tangible good news for the administration before the election. Trailing Joe Biden in the polls, the president wanted a splashy signing ceremony that September on the South Lawn, mimicking historic peace accords of the past to present himself as a transformational figure and maybe even revive his quixotic quest for a Nobel Peace Prize. (Only to be initially rebuffed by the First Lady’s office who didn’t want the newly re-sodded lawn trampled again so soon after it had been ruined by the GOP national convention.) Pg. 507: A the same time, the diplomatic normalizations were far less significant than the peace agreement Trump had promised to forge between Israel and the Palestinians, who were not invited and mentioned only in passing at the ceremony. For all his boasting, Trump made no more progress on that than any of his recent predecessors, and the Israeli-Palestinian rapprochement that he once boasted would not be "not as difficult as people have thought" turned out to be every bit as difficult as people thought. In fact, Trump arguably set the process back by giving away multiple bargaining chips to Israel without getting anything in return. Pg. 523: Unlike presidents who had been intensively hands-on during Middle East negotiations, Trump had left the details to Kushner and his team, no more involved in this foreign policy achievement than he had been in his big domestic policy initiative, the first-year tax cuts. But he was happy to swoop in now to take credit. Soon he would be touting it on the campaign trail as his shot at a Nobel Peace Prize.

It's easy for people to waltz in here, cite a book or two or nothing, and accuse other editors of bias. Trump is not a president like others before him. Yes, the "Abraham Accords" were mentioned in RS but how are we going to boil down even the short excerpts I cited and Specifico's paraphrase of Leonig/Rucker to summary-level per consensus #37? The proposed text, In 2020, the White House hosted the signing of the Abraham Accords, normalizing the foreign relations of Israel with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain (still think this RfC was a good idea, Onetwothreeip?), doesn't do it. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Is anything in that quotation not true? (And, to make it duly personalized, the text should be modified to: "In 2020 at the White House, Trump hosted....") The event did happen under the aegis of the Trump presidency, did it not? The Accords did normalize relations between those specific countries, did they not? RSes reported these facts, did they not? People who want more context can follow the links and get it. We can't provide reams of context in this article section, because it's summary only, as has been explained ad nauseam. It's only editors who are bringing their political views to bear on Wikipedia who think this text should be excluded. Editors should leave their political analysis at the door before entering this site and endeavor to report facts straightforwardly without a heavy overlay of personal political bias, like: "sad feckless abuse of Trump's office"; "a document that contrived an unnecessary bonus signature"; "political promotion and ego gratification of the Trump orbit"; "Trump is not a president like others before him" (justifying special unbalanced politicized treatment by Wikipedia?); "photo shows him standing empty-handed among the signatories" (this is a new incisive method of research to determine what text to add or withhold?) DonFB (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Re Trump not being a president like others before him (no idea whom else you're quoting) is referring to the length and complexity of his bio and our size constraints. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that clarification. The irony, if it's not already crushingly obvious, is that we do have a whole constellation of articles about Trump, covering every aspect of his life, and yet, a few editors think it's wrong or impossible to include a single sentence about a prominent reliably-sourced event in the precisely appropriate location in one of those articles. It's true that any given article should not be excessive in size; it's also true that this encyclopedia is not paper. DonFB (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

What you think you're disproving, you're actually proving further. Disengaging with this RfC may be advisable. Levivich (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not trying to disprove anything (venting, maybe). I provided quotes from cited sources that not every reader may have access to. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Further to SpaceX, if we decide to include the RfC text, we will also, per NPOV, need to contextualize it with ~5 times as much additional text about the political setting, the RS portrayals of the ceremonial contrivance, the pre-existing and post-accords mideast, etc. SPECIFICO talk 16:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

For this article, I feel like that'd be way too much detail to include - we'd start running afoul of WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE, wouldn't we? All that stuff can be found at the Abraham Accords article, which is wikilinked in the proposal. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

That's like, "Japan sank the United States Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor and later surrendered, ending World War II. See links for detail. SPECIFICO talk 17:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

NPOV says that we page editors must present the significant facts as represented by the weight of RS discussion of them. We can't just leave a link to point to another page. First, as happens to be the case with this content, the main AA page is in poor shape. Second, what's DUE for the primary topic page does not tell us what's DUE for a page that links in that direction. Context and framing matter. We are responsible for NPOV presentation to our readers. We don't get away with punting to another page. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, perhaps when this RFC ends, should it end in the affirmative to include any mention of the Abraham accords, we can move on to improving how exactly that gets implemented in the article. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I see. And are you stipulating, or can you demonstrate, that the policy applies to every last topic mentioned in an article, as opposed to applying to the main subject of the article? Every event, action, speech, decision, etc that an article mentions must have its relevant context thoroughly explicated in the article? Very practical. Let's look at the application of your interpretation. In the Israel subsection of this article, the text states that "Under Trump, the U.S. recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel". That bare bones text omits all the context about widespread opposition to that action, and omits all the context surrounding the intractable problem of the "final status for Jerusalem". You arbitrarily apply your interpretation of policy to a single matter, the Accords, as a convenient method of excluding what some, though not all, liberal pundits describe as a rare positive event in the Trump presidency. But even one such event is clearly one too many according to the editing pattern of a few contributors, some of whom in discussions like this, overtly and self-righteously express their profound political antipathy toward Trump, showing their profoundly compromised ability to apply a neutral point of view while editing articles like this one. DonFB (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

It should, in theory, apply to everything. The fact that it doesn't means that it needs to be fixed. Cessaune [talk] 21:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Flagging this !vote as dubious. See other edits by the editor ("bruh"). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The fuck? How is this democratic at all? DanRayy (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a pure democracy, and RFC discussions are not a vote. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

They've been blocked. Cessaune [talk] 14:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment—to clarify, what I see as a major issue with the proposed wording is that it fails to demonstrate the Accords' connection to Trump, instead lumping Trump together with his administration. In 2020, the White House hosted the signing of the Abraham Accords, normalizing the foreign relations of Israel with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. Doesn't even mention him. 'White House' in this sense refers to the Trump administration, I presume, which is why I think this sentence fits better at that article. As long as the proposed wording is unable to demonstrate why the Accords are notable in a Donald J. Trump context and not just a Trump admin context (in this case, the wording fails to mention Trump and how he was related to the event), I will oppose it. And if other POTUS articles include every little detail about a respective POTUS' presidency, it is no excuse for us to do so here. A president's bio should be limited to things that they were personally instrumental in orchestrating, and going into detail about things that don't fall under that category is why so many POTUS bios are way too massive. We have Presidency of XXXX articles for a reason. Let's stop cluttering their bios with tedious amounts of info. Cessaune [talk] 23:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

  And if other POTUS articles include every little detail about a respective POTUS' presidency, it is no excuse for us to do so here. Spot on. From my UP:

  • "In Wikipedia editing, the existence of bad stuff does not justify or excuse the addition or retention of other bad stuff of the same kind. Not all consistency is good consistency. —January 2018."
  • "Widespread good things should persist because they are good, not because they are widespread. "This is how it's normally done" is a terrible argument for anything, allowing widespread bad things to persist. Instead of making that argument, explain why it's better than the alternatives. Change is not a bad thing, and resistance to change impedes progress. —May 2019."

  Most cross-article consistency arguments are weak ones, and this one is no different. It's extremely unlikely many readers even notice such cross-article inconsistencies, let alone are ill-served by them. We're here to serve readers, not ourselves. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  I would like a Support !vote to adress the points I have made. Cessaune [talk] 15:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  You say that as if these points haven't been brought up in this discussion already... Just because the Accords are discussed in more detail at our articles for Abraham Accords, or Presidency of Donald Trump, or Foreign Policy of Donald Trump, that doesn't necessarily preclude any information whatsoever being included in this article. On the contrary, we have consensus item #37, which says "Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy." We're supposed to cover these things on a short, summary level here. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  Why are you repeatedly neglecting to acknowledge the ending sentence of the consensus item? Cessaune [talk] 17:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  The resolution was proposed to limit content related to Trump's presidency. If you're implying it's not applicable here... do you want us to say more about the Abraham Accords here? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  1) You never really addressed my comment above in your prior comment. That's not really the point I made.

  2) The resolution only exists as a way to weed out the simple, unnecessary stuff. It's specifically not meant to be invoked in situations such as this. See the comment by Mandruss that was linked by Space4T below. It doesn't mean that things shouldn't be limited to summary level if the are borderline or debatable. It's just something to invoke when someone adds or attempts to add something that's clearly only marginaly relevant to Trump's life/presidency. Consensus item #37 is irrelevant here. Cessaune [talk] 22:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Consensus item #37 is irrelevant here Considering we're dealing with "content related to Trump's presidency", I very much disagree that the consensus item is not relevant.

  And before I even invoked it, I said Just because the Accords are discussed in more detail at [other articles]... that doesn't necessarily preclude any information whatsoever from being included here. Seems like a valid stance to me. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Well, you're missing the point of consensus item #37 then. Cessaune [talk] 23:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Can you actually address my above points? You've address a lot of things related to my points but not the specific points. Cessaune [talk] 14:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  PS, Regardless of why that point 37 is not being fully observed, it's not helpful merely to assume (as your WP:OR)that this event is going to have some lasting impact except as one among dozens of orchestrated charades. Some, like the Church Photo Op are clearly significant, per RS. But many others have already faded and this is one of them. All participants here should take a close look at the AP source cited in the lead of the Abraham Accords article. And aside from its portrayal of this as a political/media stunt by Trump and Netanyahu, it pointedly indicates the vague and uninstrumental wording of the document that was so grandly heralded and signed at the White House. Per that reporting, both UAE and Israel soon affirmed that they were not bound by the actions listed in the AA. SPECIFICO talk 17:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Seeing as you've decided that I'm conducting WP:OR to assert that the Accords are even somewhat notable to Trump's legacy, completely ignoring my comments earlier which cited Foreign Policy's retrospective on Trump's 4 years regarding foreign policy, in addition to the other numerous RS that have been cited in this discussion, I'm going to have to say my WP:AGF for you has just about run dry. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  I've explained above why those sources fail our standard for NPOV weight. So you are left offering us a single cherrypicked source vs. at least 4 books that at least 4 editors have cited that have covered the question extensively to show that AA was just one of Trump's characteristic publicity stunts. SPECIFICO talk 23:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

About consensus #37. The editor who proposed the resolution that led to #37, Mandruss, referred the participants to their comments in the preceding article size subsection as they comprised their arguments:

I think we should be able to reach a consensus endorsing a "resolution" that content related to his presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. That would clearly exclude "Trump also praised Poland under the EU-skeptic, anti-immigrant Law and Justice party (PiS) as a defender of Western civilization." Merely removing that and everything like it, and pointing to the consensus whenever somebody attempts to add something new like it, would in my opinion solve the size issues for the remainder of his presidency. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution would not apply, but I don't think there would be any editors claiming that the example given is likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. And nobody would call it summary-level in any case.

So, is the hosting ceremony the equivalent of praising Poland or does it have a lasting impact on Trump's life and/or long-term presidential legacy? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I and many other editors above, citing plenty of RS, have made the case that the Accords are relevant to Trump's legacy. You and many other editors - citing many fewer sources, I might add - have asserted they are not relevant to his legacy. Is it, or is it not? That seems to be up to consensus, isn't it? After all, Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL - how could we say definitively right now that something is or isn't notable to his legacy? PhotogenicScientist (talk) PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

That last sentence argues against your position. In this particular article, the default in a CRYSTALBALL situation should be omit. Inclusion should wait until the legacy impact is shown. I see you asserting that it has been shown, but that was weakened by your last sentence. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, CRYSTALBALL may not be a perfect fit here... but to quote, it says It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included. By one reading of CRYSTALBALL, consensus item #37 should be completely invalidated, since we are not to decide for ourselves if material that may be included here is "likely to be" relevant to a lasting historical legacy. By another reading, if there are enough sources discussing potential future outcomes, these can be cited to include the relevant material. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I just wonder when this will be considered played out as regards the few most active participants. We could continue this until Northern Hemisphere summer without getting much further, and without affecting the final consensus assessment. I suggest the few back away and hope for other participation. If we don't get it, I think the main reason for re-opening was re-closure, despite Sandstein's comment. In any case, I don't think Sandstein's Please continue discussing. meant "Please continue discussing among the same few editors until they're all too tired to type." ―Mandruss ☎ 23:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Kind of the nature of the beast — why would sources mention events they deem irrelevant/unimportant for Trump's legacy? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• @Cessaune: you said "As long as the proposed wording is unable to demonstrate why the Accords are notable in a Donald J. Trump context and not just a Trump admin context (in this case, the wording fails to mention Trump and how he was related to the event), I will oppose it."

  I trust that you have done due diligence in this discussion. You have seen the supports side arguments and all the sources provided, as well as the arguments from the oppose side and their sources. So I will ask: Do you think there is a specific wording where you would support inclusion? Because if you think they should be included with a but, then just say so. If you support inclusion on some capacity, say what about the verbage should change in your opinion. Because, this RfC at its heart is a question of whether or not the Accords should be included at all, rather than a bicker over specific wording. It would be a damn shame for the wrong decision to be made in a time consuming discussion such as this over a mere "it wasn't worded correctly" objection.

  Remember, specific wording is pretty malleable, but whatever result happens here over the core question, is essentially written in stone. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 06:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, nothing is written in stone, as proven by numerous superseded and several omitted and obsoleted consensus items. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Perennial debate about "proper" use of Survey and Discussion sections. Can continue within the collapse. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you please move this section from the survey into discussion? You can strike my comment, but this RFC is already cluttered and this is just muddying the waters even more in the survey section. Nemov (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Agree. It's been moved by three different editors (inc me) and Cessaune moved it back each time. Levivich (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC) How come everyone wants to move my comment, but not the other comments placed in the survey section? Makes no sense to me. Cessaune [talk] 17:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC) There are no other bolded comments in this section. You still have a chance to move this to the discussion section and avoid being sanctioned for edit warring. Levivich (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC) In the original survey section there are at least three. I'm lumping both sections together because they are basically the same thing. Cessaune [talk] 17:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC) For one, your comment and S4T3C2X's comments are newer, at a time when there's renewed interest in this thread, since the overturn of the previous close. Older Comments in the survey section have sat for a while, and refactoring serves less purpose for those at this point, imo. But I wouldn't be opposed to those moving, either. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Well, what is this newfound zeal when it comes to my edit? Cessaune [talk] 17:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC) I... feel I just told you why? It's a newer comment, at a time of new interest in the thread? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Or "This RFC is a bit of a mess, some poor sod will have to read it (again) and close it (again) lets not make their job any harder". Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Both of you were present at the beginning of the discussion, before the RfC. When other editors put comments in the survey section, neither of you attempted to refactor their comments. Photogenic: you have been especially involved in this discussion, and no doubt were aware of the comments beings placed in the survey section before. Yet, there was no attempt to remove the text. It's a newer comment, at a time of new interest in the thread—it is, and I don't get why this matters. The other comments were new at some point, and were allowed to exist back then. Why? What is the difference between my comment and Gnome's comments? Why is my edit being flagged, while other editor's edits weren't? I can't understand the logic. I think it is unfair that !voters have been impacted by the comments of others that were placed in the survey section (which is vastly more visible than buried somewhere in the discussion), yet my comment is being targeted so heavily. Should comments in the survey section exist? Maybe, maybe not. It is obvious to me that this is a relatively common occurence. Cessaune [talk] 18:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC) To answer to your specific charge: The earlier discussion was incredibly messy. From the very start, we got comments from people who called it improper, and an abuse of protocol; there was much bickering and a fair bit of bludgeoning; and Gnome was not the only person to put a bolded Comment in the survey section - Onetwothreeip did as well, and I believe I remember SPECIFICO having done so, before refactoring their comments into their oppose. To use a metaphor, when the house is burning down, it's not wise to be straightening up the picture frames on the wall. At that time, I was primarily letting the discussion play out. As for now, the thread is in a better place. And like Slatersteven said, some poor sod is going to have to come along and read all of this. In their interest, it's best to keep the Survey section tidy and readable - a good way to do that is by having only !votes and perhaps a bit of clarifying back-n-forth, rather than including long discussions about sourcing or other Comments. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC) I will accept the outcome. It is clear that I am not going to convince people of my point. But I hope that you understand that this is incredibly unfair—the idea that other editors can get away with something that isn't even generally frowned upon, as least as far as I'm aware. Cessaune [talk] 18:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC) The difference between then and now is the overturned close that happened in between. That means the first round was messed up. So we're going to have a less-messed-up second round (with new participants and more orderly discussion). What needs to happen in this second round is for the folks in the first round to step back and allow new editors to examine the issue. (Which doesn't mean that everyone in the first round has to be completely silent, but they should be very circumspect as to whether they're saying anything new or repeating what they already said before.) The key trick is to not be the most disruptive editor during round 2. If Round 2 doesn't go better than Round 1, Round 3 will involve kicking people out, and that's why you don't want to be the most disruptive editor. Go with the flow... Levivich (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC) At this point in the numerous discussion threads, WTH does it matter where anything is located? It takes me minutes to find my own frigging comments. I think it's just plain rude to move another editor's comment(s) without their consent just because a few other editors think they are better placed elsewhere. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC) That dead horse is very dead, but the beating continues. Nemov (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Refactoring talk pages is common practice, and doesn't have to be done with others' consent - I made a bold change that I felt improved the flow of the discussion, and the readability for the future closer. But by all means, feel free to dispute this by reverting my change - it is your contribution after all. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Shouldn't you refactor your own comment in the "Survey (continued)" section then? As for moving my comments adding the excerpts of sources cited by !votes, repeating my earlier comment: WTH does it matter where anything is located at this point. Cessaune objected to the refactoring of their comment, to no avail, and, yeah, it looks as though some comments are more equal than others. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC) Er... that's not a Comment, bolded and created on its own line in the survey section; that's a reply to a !vote. Of which there has been plenty in this discussion, and all RFCs - though I imagine you've been around long enough to have seen this. You really think people shouldn't be allowed to reply to !votes in RFCs? Not even once? Because if you do, that would be rather hypocritical of you. Cessaune did object, and was overruled by more editors than myself. But, you have the ability to object after being refactored - it says so right in WP:REFACTOR. If you did so, I would not reinstate my refactoring - I was only trying to boldly improve the thread. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC) hypocritical of me — nope, only if I had refactored other editors' comments or replies (not much of a distinction, IMO). I only moved aka "refactored" my own comment with the replies of two editors who had given me their express permission to do so — see the thread for the particulars. Anyway, prior to this I had neither heard of nor ever noticed refactoring. I think I'll continue to live by the WP rule I learned early on and keep my mitts off other editors' edits. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC) The reason this debate is "perennial" is that nobody has ever come up with a very good way to handle replies to !votes (and replies to the replies). Anything other than including them inline takes them out of context, and I've seen at least two experiments that didn't work very well for that reason. I personally don't have a problem with including them inline; for someone uninterested in the replies, it only costs them some scrolling. Each !vote is clearly marked by a bullet. Then the Discussion section would be only for comments that are not replies to !votes (or replies to the replies). ―Mandruss ☎ 20:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC) Yes. That's why we use threaded indents. What shouldn't happen is griping about it with time that could be used actually surveying RS sources. SPECIFICO talk 21:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC) I also have little problem with bulleted and bolded Comments in a Survey section. It's a fairly common practice, and, again, these are easily bypassed with some scrolling. But it raises the question of what the Discussion section is for, and "higher visibility" is a poor reason to Comment in a Survey section. It's not unlike using a lot of bolding to give one's comment greater prominence, which is discouraged by guidelines. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Ah, explains everything Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Selfstudier: wanna see one that really didn't age well: a month before 10/7, the Federalist proclaimed, "Trump ushered in a new era of peace and collaboration in the Middle East without a single bullet fired" [10] He's been trying to get a Nobel for years ("for a lot of things"), because Obama has one. Levivich (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Excerpt from today's WorldView newsletter, headline "Behind Biden's Middle East crises is the long tail of Trump's legacy": Taking a wrecking ball to diplomacy with Tehran, Trump broke the nuclear deal forged between Iran and world powers, restored a slate of sanctions on the Islamic Republic and assassinated influential Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Qasem Soleimani in a 2020 drone strike. Trump’s policy on Israel, meanwhile, amounted to a tight bear hug of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the boosting of the agenda of the Israeli right. He was punitive to the Palestinians — markedly shifting U.S. policy against them by formally recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, shuttering a U.S. consulate intended for Palestinians, and brokering “peace” deals between Israel and a clutch of Arab monarchies that further sidelined Palestinian political aspirations.

Foreign Policy, September 3, 2022: But two years on, the accords are losing luster because inside Israel, they are overshadowed by the intensification of conflict with the Palestinians. 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.

PolitiFact, December 5, 2023: Trump claims he made peace in the Middle East with Abraham Accords. That’s False. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I would (again) point out that it should not be in the lede if it is not in the body. As well as the lede is a summery of important parts of THIS ARTICLE, is this an important part of this article? Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Opposers say the qualification for text in the "Presidency" section of the article is that it has to be about "the man, not his presidency", or that "there's insufficient coverage from neutral high-quality WP:RSes supporting the idea that this is significant to Trump's personal biography". Trump himself personalized the issue by claiming he was bringing peace to the Mid East. Opposers dismiss that personalized statement, but apparently believe Trump quitting the Iran nuclear deal does qualify as significant to his "personal biography". Explain the difference between these events. Why is one significant to his personal bio, but the other is not? What sources support that analysis? Some opposers have shown sources that disparage the Accords or evaluate them as not achieving their goals. The opposers who think negative response or analysis of this particular Trump policy--the Accords--is a reason to exclude any mention of it should explain why abandonment of the Iran nuclear deal, which garnered far more negative reviews than the Accords, does deserve the place it occupies in the "Presidency" section. I'll help clarify. They both deserve a place in the article not because they were uniformly positive, but because they were significant actions approved by Trump, as shown by huge amounts of persistent coverage in reliable sources. The "Presidency" section in this article is very large. It's not credible that all the text in it is about "the man, not his presidency", the oxymoronic standard that opposers would impose for inclusion of text in the Presidency section.

One other reason opposers would exclude the sentence is their heads I win, tails you lose rationale, which says the sentence needs added context, but that's not allowed, because it would bloat the article. Take note, therefore, that Trump's abandonment of the Iran nuclear deal is stated in one sentence, and a second sentence is included for context. Trump's order to kill Soleimani is stated in one sentence, followed by three sentences for context, and another sentence about downing of the Ukraine airliner, an event completely unrelated to Trump's "personal biography". There is one reason, and one reason only, for opposition to a single sentence about the Accords. That reason is stonewall resistance to including anything in this article that might look like something positive from the Trump administration. That stonewall resistance is draped in some glib policy justifications, but the motivation is unquestionably political bias, as seen in some discussion comments, which amounts to a repudiation of everything Wikipedia stands for. It is a certainty that if this same agreement and ceremony occurred under an Obama or Biden administration, none of the opposing editors would object to inclusion of the sentence in either of those biographical articles. DonFB (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Trump doesn't get to define what's relevant to his personal biography. RSs do.

Iran nuclear deal: Trump ran on the idea that he would renegotiate the deal, but failed to do so [11]. That's already more Trump involvement than the Accords can claim. He made public statements on the matter as well [12], including the final withdrawal [13]. Considering that the JCPOA is at least as notable as the Accords, the comparison here doesn't make any sense. Trump was specifically involved in the withdrawal, and it was his decision to leave.

The sentence needs context and we should avoid bloat, given how massive this article is. That being said, adding context will always override any bloat issues. If the sentence goes through there will inevitably be another discussion about wording and context.

It's not credible that all the text in it is about "the man, not his presidency"—you're probably right. However, most of what's in there is either inextricably tied to his legacy (COVID-19 in the United States, for example), something that he was personally involved in (Lafayette Square) or is something that is notable in a global context (COVID-19 in general). Everything else should probably be removed. The Ukraine airliner is an example of what I've been saying for a long time: the fact that the article currently isn't perfect is no reason for us to make it less perfect.

You make a lot of very harsh, very generic statements. I'd like you to specifically accuse people of what you describe as stonewall resistance on the grounds of [unquestionable] political bias, with quotes and reasoning. It's very easy to claim that side B (in this case, "opposers"), is being/doing XYZ thing, so if you truly mean what you are saying, please indicate who specifically you are talking about. I think that's more than reasonable. I have made my opinion very clear from the outset, and I would like for it to not be summed up as some sort of underlying TDS-type bias hidden behind a policy wall of shoddy manufacturing. It's lazy and, frankly, rude to call an entire side biased, and it is especially arrogant to treat your statements as if they are facts, without providing even a single quote. Cessaune [talk] 14:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@DonFB:, Cessaune has already reminded you to focus on the content issue rather than attributing your concerns to foul play by your colleagues here. Please take heed. It will make your participation more effective.

It's not "heads I win tails you lose" from the oppose editors. That's a bad way to frame it, because when the content is improved we all benefit, knowing that it better informs our readers. But to continue with that inappropriate analogy, it is more like those who support saying "heads I lose, tails you win". NPOV determines that, not a zero sum content battle.

The distinction between AA and Trump's ditching the Nuclear Agreement is that the latter has been enormously consequential, according to RS. In contrast, the best published sources cited on this page - several books and AP accounts - tell us that Trump's appropriation, branding, and messaging at and about his staging of AA amounted to nothing at all, while the multidimensional realities of regional relations have continued to unfold unaffected by what those sources describe as the political circus stunt of Trump's AA ceremony. SPECIFICO talk 16:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you recognize these quotes?

"It's all political puffery and campaign drivel by Trump and his flaks"

"a document that contrived an unnecessary bonus signature line for Trump to deploy his Sharpie"

"one among dozens of orchestrated charades"

"the photo shows him standing empty-handed among the signatories"

"one of Trump's characteristic publicity stunts"

"this inconsequential command performance in DC"

"political promotion and ego gratification of the Trump orbit, extensively and near-exclusively quoted in the bulk of RS praise, as if that sad feckless abuse of Trump's office should be elevated by this encyclopedia"

"political circus stunt of Trump's AA ceremony"

And this oldie but goodie:

"every time the Republicans try to bring their zombie conspiracy theories back from the grave"

Legitimate policy argumentation? Or chronic personal snark betraying clear political bias and not-so-hidden motivation to exclude abundantly and reliably sourced relevant content...in repudiation of the fundamental Wikipedia value of neutrality. DonFB (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Those are all backed up by the sources I cite in presenting content suggestions and analysis. Please review the references and mainstream reporting on the related events. The white house press corps and subsequent biographers have not treated the AA ceremony kindly. SPECIFICO talk 04:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The first one is: Did you actually read that Politico piece? It's all political puffery and campaign drivel by Trump and his flaks. What source backs that up? What source calls this Politico piece "all political puffery and campaign drivel by Trump and his flaks"? Levivich (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

We don"t need a second source in order to characterize a the quality of a reference. That politico piece is conveying and attributing Trump administration narratives. SPECIFICO talk 05:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

If you ask me, and you didn't but I'm going to tell you anyway: Politico is WP:TIER3; Foreign Policy, Maggie Haberman's book, and this commentary are all WP:TIER2; but these are all WP:TIER1 and all WP:TWL links so almost every editor has access to some of the best sources available about the Abraham Accords: [14] [15] [16] [17]. Levivich (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Preaching to the choir. Why was the above list of quotes (I assume that’s what they are) even dredged up here? Re Did you actually read that Politico piece?: that’s one quote I can place because I was briefly involved in the discussion. Missing context - the comment was made way back at the beginning of December, in response to an editor who said this about the Politico article: Here’s Politico calling the ceremony hosted by Trump "historic". Politico also says this: The Trump administration has pursued a Middle East policy favoring Israel and aimed largely at coercing the Palestinians to participate in peace talks — including by cutting off their U.S. aid, among other measures. But even if Trump hopes the accords become yet another pressure point for the Palestinians to agree to a peace deal with Israel, officials within the UAE and Bahrain do not necessarily share this view. For the Emiratis and the Bahrainis, the normalization agreements with Israel are more important for the united front they present against Iran, as well their potential economic and diplomatic benefits. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment — adding a Foreign Policy article published on October 9, 2023, two days after the Hamas atrocities. Excerpt: Finally, in U.S. President Donald Trump and his ambitious son-in-law, Jared Kushner, Netanyahu found his dream partnership. Trump gave Netanyahu virtual carte blanche to move further into the West Bank and ensure Oslo’s destruction. Then, one by one, Trump began to unilaterally withdraw rights and recognitions from the Palestinians that both sides used to consider “final status” issues to be negotiated under Oslo. At Kushner’s urging, Trump announced that he was moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and ended the formal U.S. relationship with the Palestinian Liberation Organization by closing its office in Washington. The administration also denied a right of return for Palestinians to Israel and pulled funding to support Palestinian refugees—all without offering any real solution regarding the future of the Palestinian people. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

  The most important part of the article is this:

  "A status quo built on repression, which is what the Abraham Accords and the so-called Israel-Saudi ‘normalization’ deal are really about", quoting an advisor to Bernie Sanders. All the more reason to include a sentence about the Accords, given that reports exist both praising and condemning them, demonstrating their significance. To clarify my position: I do not oppose including one or more contextualizing sentences; earlier I lampooned the fact that such sentences already exist, while some opposers say we shouldn't add context to the Accords because of article bloat. That damage is already done, and one or two more sentences won't break anything. However, the following suggestion does not add an extra contextualizing sentence, but does add some text to the first sentence as follows:

  "Trump supported many of the policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, including initiatives that worked against the interests of the Palestinian people [footnote/s]." Retain existing sentence on Jerusalem/Golan. The final (third) sentence would be the one shown in RFC, though I would modify it to include Trump's name: "In 2020 at the White House, Trump hosted the signing of the Abraham Accords that were mediated by U.S. officials and normalized diplomatic relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain." DonFB (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

PLEASE put your 'support/oppose/neutral' postings, in the subsection "Survey (continued)". GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

A reminder

Let's all be mindful of WP:BLUDGEON, during this RFC's process. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know about BLUDGEON, but we can avoid circular discussion and the misconception that such debates can be "won". There comes a point where one's arguments have been fully articulated and further debate wastes everybody's time and talk page space, as well as making a closer's job a lot harder. And it's exceedingly rare to see someone's mind changed by this, for various reasons. Whether we're at that point I wouldn't presume to say. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, GoodDay, which is why I, for one, have already absconded. -The Gnome (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Now about bludgeoning? Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

That'll do ;) GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Yawns* *looks at phone * W²⁰⁰

Anyhow Can i get a recap of whats happened •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Some folks support the proposal at the top of this RfC and some others oppose it. And a few from both sides are posting up a tad too much. -The Gnome (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully, this will put to an end, calls for the Accords inclusion. GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Sadly no. See User talk:Vanderwaalforces/Archives/2024/01 (January)#Close at Trump. Zaathras (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

How is this still open? Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the close was overturned[18] and this RFC reopened for more comment. Nemov (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

See this edit. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's be mindful of bludgeoning & not rebuttal entries in the survey section, now that the RFC has been re-opened. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I would remind users this is about him, the man, not his presidency, that is Presidency of Donald Trump. So what should be here is what is notable about him, not that something notable happens to him. Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The subsection of the article into which the proposed sentence would be placed is part of a main section called "Presidency (2017–2021)". That main section contains 48--count 'em--48 subsections and sub-subsections. Would you have people believe that all the text in all those subsections is about the man, but not the presidency? The distinction a few editors are trying to make between the person and the presidency in that main section is a fiction that merely serves to paper over politically inspired exclusion of valid content. Let's look at your working definition: "what should be here is what is notable about him". Just letting my eye fall on a random part of the "Presidency" section, how does the first sentence of sub-subsection "Economy" (5.3.1) fulfill that definition? It says: "Trump took office at the height of the longest economic expansion in American history, which began in June 2009 and continued until February 2020, when the COVID-19 recession began." Is that a sentence that says something "notable about him, not that he has something notable happen to him"? More to the point, the idea that the Accords happened to him--that he, as president, had no role in the process whatsoever--is a false predicate. Feel free to peruse the other 47 sub-subsections to see how valid the concept is of confining text in the "Presidency" section of the article only to information that is "notable" about Trump. DonFB (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The fact that the article currently isn't perfect is no reason for us to make it less perfect. While this edit isn't necessarily a bad one, this kind of justification is flawed. Cessaune [talk] 17:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

PLEASE put your support/oppose/neutral posts in the "Survey (continued)" subsection. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Discussion of second closure

Seems we need clarification. I assume that this paragraph means exactly what it says (bolding added by me): The community's decision is to support the principle of mentioning the Abraham Accords, not to endorse the specific wording given in the RfC question. That wording can still be edited in the normal way. I.e., edits do NOT have to garner strong consensus on the Talk page, as this edit says. I don't know what to make of "very carefully reasoned"; the criteria should be NPOV and supported by the majority of RS. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

PhotogenicScientist, at least to me, it's obvious that the discussion switched from do I support this specific wording to do I support a mention of the Abraham Accords in the article? pretty early on. Cessaune [talk] 17:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

You're not wrong - the discussion took on a much broader scope over time. Though, 2 points to keep in mind:

1. The RFC question literally asked "Should the Israel subsection of the foreign policy subsection be updated to include the bolded sentence below?" - this is the explicit proposal which started garnering Supports
2. No alternative wording was sufficiently discussed in the course of the discussion; in the absence of such an alternative, why would we not use the wording originally proposed?

It seems wrong to me to try and read into the Support votes and deduce for ourselves that they didn't all support the wording as proposed.

Now, I personally think it would be wrong to codify that wording in stone - I generally believe that everything in any article is subject to improvement at any time. But this article is a special case. Especially so soon after a long and chaotic RFC, I think it would be detrimental to this article for us to immediately try workshopping some new wording.

But, its as Levivich said - unless someone has a change in mind to propose, this discussion seems purely academic. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@S Marshall I just saw the discussion at your talk page. Would you mind commenting here why you think the wording proposed in the RFC doesn't have community consensus? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'd mind. Direct questions about the close to my talk page please.—S Marshall T/C 19:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This is pretty academic unless someone has a change they want to make to the wording? Levivich (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

And if we do change something about the wording, it might be to summarize this aspect:

• Confidence Man (2022): Advocates eventually viewed the accords as a significant achievement...
• The Divider (2022): The accords were, in fact, a genuine breakthrough in the region.
• I Alone Can Fix It (2021): On September 15, Trump notched a rare foreign-policy achievement...
• NYT (2020, the source currently cited in the article): But many analysts of the region, while affording Mr. Trump credit for helping to broker the agreement — work spearheaded by his son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner — called the talk of peace overblown.
• Foreign Policy (2022): arguably one of the Trump administration’s few foreign-policy achievements

I'm not sure what other sources say. Generally I'd put a lot more stock in newer sources than older ones. Levivich (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

In 2020, the White House hosted the signing of the Abraham Accords, normalizing the foreign relations of Israel with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.^[1]

normalizing --> formalizing. Cessaune [talk] 17:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Have you compared which sources use "normalizing" and which use "formalizing"? I just took a quick look at NYT (the source currently used in the article, which btw isn't the best source because it's now outdated), Confidence Man, The Divider, I Alone Can Fix It, and Foreign Policy. AFAICS, they all say "normalizing" and none say "formalizing." That's probably because "normalizing" is what it's called in foreign relations when two countries establish formal diplomatic relations. Levivich (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind switching to a better source; I just picked a contemporary news article since it seems like most of the Presidency section cites that kind of source. Malerisch (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Which source(s) do you think would be better? I think I'd support swapping the NYT cite with the 2022 Foreign Policy article linked above. Levivich (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure—that source, or the books you mentioned above, all work for me. Malerisch (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

TBH I just thought it made more sense. I didn't actually read the sources. If they all say normalizing then let's say normalizing. Cessaune [talk] 22:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I discovered today that I have been editing an appalling dump heap. The first closing was contested before AN. Now the same editor appears to be contesting a part of the closing they don't agree with. So, before getting accused of dumping more appalling heaps, let's get the parsing of the above-quoted sentence out of the way. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

You didn't appreciate the Grinch reference? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

According to the stats, I authored 19.5% of the characters in the article. Oddly, being told that I'm a major contributor to an appalling dump heap does not fill my heart with joy. Anyhoo, we now have consensus #65: Mention the Abraham Accords in the article; no consensus was achieved on specific wordings. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)