Talk:Donald Trump

Highlighted open discussions

• Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 131#Second interim proposal - To decide what the first paragraph should read after the inauguration, to be followed by discussions about further changes.

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
[[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .

01. Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image. (Dec 2016, Jan 2017, Oct 2017, March 2020) (temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait, enforced when an official public-domain portrait was released on 31 October 2017)

02. Show birthplace as "Queens, New York City, U.S." in the infobox. (Nov 2016, Oct 2018, Feb 2021) "New York City" de-linked. (September 2020)

03. Omit reference to county-level election statistics. (Dec 2016)

04. Superseded by #15

Lead phrasing of Trump "gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College" and "receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide", without quoting numbers. (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

05. Use Trump's annual net worth evaluation and matching ranking, from the Forbes list of billionaires, not from monthly or "live" estimates. (Oct 2016) In the lead section, just write: Forbes estimates his net worth to be [$x.x] billion. (July 2018, July 2018) Removed from the lead per #47.

06. Do not include allegations of sexual misconduct in the lead section. (June 2016, Feb 2018)

07. Superseded by #35

Include "Many of his public statements were controversial or false." in the lead. (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

08. Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (Dec 2016)

09. Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2017) Include a link to an archive of Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2021)

10. Canceled

Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016) Canceled: Barron's BLP has existed since June 2019. (June 2024)

11. Superseded by #17

The lead sentence is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States." (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (RM Jan 2017, RM June 2019)

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 14 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". (Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (Nov 2019)

14. Omit mention of Trump's alleged bathmophobia/fear of slopes. (Feb 2017)

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

Supersedes #4. There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text (Diff 8 Jan 2017) has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense (Diff 11 Feb 2018). No new changes should be applied without debate. (RfC Feb 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017, Feb 2017) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

17. Superseded by #50

Supersedes #11. The lead paragraph is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (April 2017, RfC April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, July 2017, Dec 2018) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per Dec 2018 and MOS:JOBTITLES RfC Oct 2017. Wikilinks modified per April 2020. Wikilink modified again per July 2020. "45th" de-linked. (Jan 2021)

18. Superseded by #63

The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "Wharton School (BS Econ.)", does not mention Fordham University. (April 2017, April 2017, Aug 2020, Dec 2020)

19. Obsolete

Following deletion of Trump's official White House portrait for copyright reasons on 2 June 2017, infobox image was replaced by File:Donald Trump Pentagon 2017.jpg. (June 2017 for replacement, June 2017, declined REFUND on 11 June 2017) (replaced by White House official public-domain portrait according to #1 since 31 Oct 2017)

20. Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. (June 2017, May 2018) (Note: In February 2021, when he was no longer president, the verb tense was changed from "have sparked" to "sparked", without objection.)

21. Superseded by #39

Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him. (July 2017, Aug 2017) (superseded by #36 on 18 June 2019, then by #39 since 20 Aug 2019)

22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (RfC Aug 2017, upheld by RfC July 2024)

23. Superseded by #52

The lead includes the following sentence: Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. (Aug 2017, Nov 2017, Dec 2017, Jan 2018, Jan 2018) Wording updated (July 2018) and again (Sep 2018).

24. Superseded by #30

Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (Feb 2018) (superseded by #30 since 16 Aug 2018)

25. Do not add web archives to cited sources which are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)

26. Do not include opinions by Michael Hayden and Michael Morell that Trump is a "useful fool […] manipulated by Moscow" or an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation". (RfC April 2018)

27. State that Trump falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton started the Barack Obama birther rumors. (April 2018, June 2018)

28. Include, in the Wealth section, a sentence on Jonathan Greenberg's allegation that Trump deceived him in order to get on the Forbes 400 list. (June 2018, June 2018)

29. Include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article. (June 2018)

30. Supersedes #24. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." (RfC Sep 2018, Oct 2018, RfC May 2019)

31. Do not mention Trump's office space donation to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/Push Coalition in 1999. (Nov 2018)

32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. (RfC July 2018, Nov 2018)

33. Do not mention "birtherism" in the lead section. (RfC Nov 2018)

34. Refer to Ivana Zelníčková as a Czech model, with a link to Czechs (people), not Czechoslovakia (country). (Jan 2019)

35. Superseded by #49

Supersedes #7. Include in the lead: Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. (RfC Feb 2019)

36. Superseded by #39

Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him. (June 2019) (paragraph removed per RfC Aug 2019 yielding consensus #39)

37. Resolved: 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. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (June 2019)

38. Do not state in the lead that Trump is the wealthiest U.S. president ever. (RfC June 2019)

39. Supersedes #21 and #36. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)

40. Include, when discussing Trump's exercise or the lack thereof: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise. (RfC Aug 2019)

41. Omit book authorship (or lack thereof) from the lead section. (RfC Nov 2019)

42. House and Senate outcomes of the impeachment process are separated by a full stop. For example: He was impeached by the House on December 18, 2019, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted of both charges by the Senate on February 5, 2020. (Feb 2020)

43. The rules for edits to the lead are no different from those for edits below the lead. For edits that do not conflict with existing consensus: Prior consensus is NOT required. BOLD edits are allowed, subject to normal BRD process. The mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it. (March 2020)

44. The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results. (RfC May 2020)

45. Superseded by #48

There is no consensus to mention the COVID-19 pandemic in the lead section. (RfC May 2020, July 2020) (Superseded by RfC Aug 2020)

46. Use the caption "Official portrait, 2017" for the infobox image. (Aug 2020, Jan 2021)

47. Do not mention Trump's net worth or Forbes ranking (or equivalents from other publications) in the lead, nor in the infobox. (Sep 2020)

48. Supersedes #45. Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic should be mentioned in the lead section. There is no consensus on specific wording, but the status quo is Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. (Oct 2020, RfC Aug 2020)

49. Supersedes #35. Include in lead: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. (Dec 2020)

50. Supersedes #17. The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. (March 2021), amended (July 2021), inclusion of politician (RfC September 2021)

51. Include in the lead that many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as misogynistic. (Aug 2021 and Sep 2021)

52. Supersedes #23. The lead should contain a summary of Trump's actions on immigration, including the Muslim travel ban (cf. item 23), the wall, and the family separation policy. (September 2021)

53. The lead should mention that Trump promotes conspiracy theories. (October 2021)

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (October 2021)

55. Regarding Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, do not wiki-link "Trump's comments" in this manner. (RfC December 2021)

56. Retain the content that Trump never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan but add context. Current wording can be altered or contextualized; no consensus was achieved on alternate wordings. (RfC November 2021) Trump's expressions of doubt regarding the Russian Bounties Program should be included in some capacity, though there there is no consensus on a specific way to characterize these expressed doubts. (RfC March 2022)

57. Do not mention in the lead Gallup polling that states Trump's the only president to never reach 50% approval rating. (RfC January 2022)

58. Use inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations. (RfC May 2022, discussion on what to cite May 2022)

59. Do not label or categorize Trump as a far-right politician. (RfC August 2022)

60. Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023.

61. When a thread is started with a general assertion that the article is biased for or against Trump (i.e., without a specific, policy-based suggestion for a change to the article), it is to be handled as follows:

1. Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias.
2. Close the thread using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, referring to this consensus item.
3. Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
4. Manually archive the thread.

This does not apply to posts that are clearly in bad faith, which are to be removed on sight. (May 2023)

62. The article's description of the five people who died during and subsequent to the January 6 Capitol attack should avoid a) mentioning the causes of death and b) an explicit mention of the Capitol Police Officer who died. (RfC July 2023)

63. Supersedes #18. The alma mater field of the infobox reads: "University of Pennsylvania (BS)". (September 2023)

64. Omit the {{Very long}} tag. (January 2024)

65. Mention the Abraham Accords in the article; no consensus was achieved on specific wordings. (RfC February 2024)

66. Omit {{infobox criminal}}. (RfC June 2024)

67. The "Health habits" section includes: "Trump says he has never drunk alcohol, smoked cigarettes, or used drugs. He sleeps about four or five hours a night." (February 2021)

Long tag

There has been some back and forth on the article about whether this tag should be on the article. It seems clear to me that this article suffers from length issues and this should be brought to mind when editors seek to make changes to the article. Are there any objections? Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Prior consensus on the talk page states to leave the article alone, so I wouldn't add it. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 07:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Are there any objections? – Beg pardon? You know very well there are objections. You have been a participant as this tag has been rejected again and again at this article, as I said in my edit summary,[1] and you don't get another bite at the apple every time a passerby drops in unaware of that fact.[2] I am not going to debate the merits yet again, and I'm asking you to drop this, preferably by self-closing this discussion as "withdrawn". ―Mandruss ☎ 10:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean if there are any objections presently. If there aren't any objections at this present time, then the tag should go ahead. I'm aware in the past there has been more opposition than support for it, but I am gauging if that is still the case now. I apologise if that wasn't clear. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Just gauge intermittently -- like every 6 months or so. SPECIFICO talk 20:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I continue to oppose the tag with the same reasoning as all the previous times. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Should we add this to the Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus#Current consensus? Something like:

050. Do not include the {{long}} tag at the beginning of the article. (link)

Politicsfan4 (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

There isn't a consensus on this talk page section, but there may be one. So far only I have indicated support of it, and only Mandruss has indicated opposition. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. SPECIFICO talk 04:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. We all know it's too long, no need to state the obvious. Besides, having maintenance tags on articles gives them the appearance of being poor quality. Mgasparin (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

We clearly do not all know this, by the fact that the article is too long, otherwise it wouldn't be. Those who participate on the talk page may overwhelmingly know that the article is too long, but many editors of this article aren't checking the talk page, and most of the readers who are all potential editors don't check this talk page either. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I had the same thought, and it looks like that will be necessary. Since some editors in this thread are wisely refraining from engaging the debate yet again, the list item should probably link to one or two of the earlier discussions. I think this one is the most recent one. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Agreed. This is a controversial issue, so it should be included in the current consensus. Politicsfan4 (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Compromise/alternative idea - the editnotice for the page currently is itself too long and isn't going to be fully read by anyone probably. The "want to add new information" section is in smaller text than the other three sections of the editnotice, and is at the very bottom. Personally, I don't even know where the first red box comes from, but if nothing else we should put the "want to add new information" in larger text and at the very top so people who try to edit the article see that statement first. It also doesn't include all the other articles there are - that needs updating. Maybe that will prevent people from adding more while future discussion here can work on paring down what's already in? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support tag.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support tag. At 122 kB readable prose size there is a problem. Fix it and you'll get to remove the tag. Maintenance tags are not badges of shame. They alert editors about a specific issue and serve as a call to action to fix/discuss it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support tag - It won't hurt to make it official. GoodDay (talk) 03:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Given your more recent comments about drastically reducing the size of the article, are you willing to reconsider your opposition to the maintenance tag? Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we can tentatively place the tag into the article, as the default circumstance when a tag is applicable to the article, until or unless there is a consensus against doing so. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be placed on the article. The opponents say it will have no effect — which might be true — but that's not a strong reason not to have the tag. At worst, it might not do anything. But it just might encourage editors to stop inflating the article. It is inconsistent for editors to bemoan the size of the article and to remain silent or actively encourage an expansion of the article. I have not seen a strong argument against having a tag. If no one presents a strong argument that a tag would be bad, rather than just ineffectual, I will impose the tag and enforce it as far and as much as I can.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: I recommend you go ahead with it. The clear sentiment here is that there should be a tag. There has been plenty of opportunity for opposition. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Jeepers - if at first you don't succeed, try again, and again, and again, and again ---? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment The tag should be on the article, but I am now also looking into adding something in the edit notice. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Certain articles require to be chunky. Des Vallee (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

This can still be a large article without being as ridiculously large as it is currently. 450,000 bytes puts it as large as the other negligently largest articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

What is the basis of your assertion of negligence? The content and length of the article have been discussed here for at least four years, and much editor attention has been devoted to managing it. SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Far too little editor attention has been devoted to reducing the size of the article, clearly. The negligence is that it was ever allowed to get to this size. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

That is startlingly unresponsive. I just told you that dozens of editors have been concerned with the length and balancing that with other editorial objectives. Please review the talk archive discussions about length. NPOV and V are core policy. Reducing length at their expense is not improvement. SPECIFICO talk 22:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

That is not what is happening here. Especially since most of the trimming is stuff that is already in other articles. I promise, NPOV and V are still safe. PackMecEng (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support tag It needs a good trim to remove trivia and move less important things into sub articles. Perhaps the tag will help dissuade efforts to pointlessly hamper the needed quality improvements to this article. PackMecEng (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose tag. Serves zero purpose here, and disruptive to our readers. We use maintenance tags to tag issues primarily for articles that may not be watched or on editors' radar; this biography, by contrast, is a highly watched article. Neutrality^talk 17:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

While that's an interesting hypothesis, it has now been thoroughly disproven. We have gone on without tag for a long time, and the issue has not fixed, in many cases getting worse. The purpose is to bring attention to the issue, which it clearly needs. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

There is zero evidence that slapping a big, intrusive tag on the top of the article will "bring attention to the issue" (which clearly is already on editors' radar). If editors advocating for the tag redirected their energy to actually proposing consensus-based changes, then perhaps the page size could be reduced. Neutrality^talk 21:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we need more editors advocating consensus changes to reduce the article size, which is why we need the tag so much. You can't possibly argue that something so "intrusive" isn't at the same time catching attention! If tags don't give any attention to anything, then there would never be a point to any tag at all, which is clearly not the case. The only things that have zero evidence are that not having a tag would bring attention to the issue, and that there is sufficient attention on this issue. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course it is possible for a tag to be both intrusive and ineffectual. See, e.g., alarm fatigue. Neutrality^talk 22:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

It would be easy to conduct an experiment - the article gets 50,000-5,000,000 visits a day, the statistics are good! So, monitor the article for a week for new editors shortening the article, then place the tag there for a week and monitor for new editors shortening the article. Make a simple table and keep track. In two weeks we would have a quantitative answer! At least this issue could be put to rest. Bdushaw (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bdushaw: That's a good idea, but we've already had years of not placing the tag, so we can already do so. We would also surely need more than a week to measure. Once the tag is on the article, there probably wouldn't be consensus to remove it until the article was a much better size. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It appears there's consensus to remove it now -- so much for that idea. It's not helpful to attract well-meaning editors hell-bent on cutting the article without the context and subject knowledge to do it in an NPOV manner. That's a big waste of editor time and attention. SPECIFICO talk 21:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus against the tag. The weight of this discussion leans towards placing the tag. Making this article more in line with NPOV is another discussion entirely. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

That is simply not what's going on. The status quo is NPOV and most of the cuts have unbalanced it and needed to be reverted. It's absurd to say cuts do not entail NPOV policy. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not this article is neutral is another matter entirely. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support tag — the discussion on this article needs to move from whether to reduce the length, to how to reduce the length. The tag is useful for the reasons stated above. Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose tag, again. Its not useful since there are already many, many editors on this article and all of them already know the article is too long. It takes quite a long time for a new editor to an article like this to grasp its organization, main points, etc, so attracting fly-by-night editors is counter productive; an editor coming in and hacking away is not helpful. The article receives a few hundred thousand up to 5M visits a day; the tag is merely an annoyance to quite a lot of people. I suspect those promoting the tag have the aim of that annoyance. And since we've had to revisit this issue time and time again, I do have to question the good faith of those raising and promoting the issue again (as noted above); this is a distraction and a waste of time. Bdushaw (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The article is currently averaging around 200,000 views per day. The high interest in this article only increases the urgency for this article to be reduced in size. If the price of getting the size down to a reasonable level is that some people will feel annoyed at a maintenance tag, which I have never heard to be the case on any other article, then so be it. I've also never seen disruptive editing occur as a result of this tag, and nobody has demonstrated any evidence of it. This article is currently restricted to editors who have made 500 edits over at least six months. There is clearly significant support for a tag, so it is fair that this matter be discussed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support I agree with Berchanhimez. In my opinion, this article has a bunch stupid crap in it, and we need to have serious discussion on shortening it and restoring it to a proper article. Oppose doesn't serve a purpose here, would only distract from content. Some articles justifiably have to be long, this is one of those exceptions.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support tag. This has gone on for months where any reductions are challenged and bludgeoned to the point nobody tries anymore. This article is too long, it is well over recommended length, and nobody cares to actually let anything be done about it. The tag should be there to convince people to actually get shit done, instead of ignoring the problem. Hiding the problem by not having a tag there doesn’t make it go away. Having the tag there may help people get the motivation to fix it. Thus, benefits outweigh any cons, and it should be placed until the problem is fixed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The first paragraph

The first paragraph of the lead normally serves to briefly summarise the key aspects of the article. The current first paragraph doesn't do a very good job at that. It says nothing about how his presidency is not viewed as a "normal" presidency; he wasn't just a boring businessman who was elected to some office, did nothing spectacular, and then left, like a lot of elected officials. You have to read endless details about his beauty pageants and golf courses and so on and so forth until you get to the truly important material in the last paragraph of the lead, his violent insurrection against US democracy, his two impeachments, the things that really made history, the unprecedented scandalous nature of his presidency.

Therefore, I propose that we add a short sentence at the end of the first paragraph that briefly summarises the extraordinary aspects of his presidency, including his two impeachments. I tentatively propose:

Throughout his presidency he has been widely accused of abuse of power and corruption, and he has been impeached twice.

--Tataral (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Tataral, what do you think about the second paragraph? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Normally, a lead section is structured somewhat chronologically and/or thematically, with the exception of the first paragraph that serves as a mini summary of the article. The second para discusses his background and business career, and that's ok as long as the first para adequately summarises the lead and article. --Tataral (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I mixed up first, second and third paragraph. I didn't count the first paragraph as paragraph. I thought your proposal was to add something at the end of the second paragraph, immediately before the third paragraph, adding redundance. Never mind. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support — his presidency will be perhaps best remembered for this. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 00:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for 70 years he was known as a buisnessman and an entertainer. How it is writen is a good summary of his life and not just the last four years of it Anon0098 (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia articles are written relative to the importance of the material. His pre-presidential career owning a couple of beauty pageants is dwarfed in importance by his presidency a million times over. I hadn't even heard of him until 2015. --Tataral (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Just because you hadn't heard of him before doesn't mean no one else had. He was a relatively major social figure prior to his presidency, which is partly why it was so shocking that he was elected. Saying he was a buisnessman and entertainer as well as president is a suitable introduction before chronologically detailing his life. Nothing more in depth needs to be added to the lede. Anon0098 (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: I agree with Anon0098 — we have to acknowledge his first 70 years. And this has recently been discussed. See above. An impeachment without a conviction — or two impeachments without a conviction, which looks like being the case — doesn't amount to much. It is the equivalent of being charged with a crime but being acquitted. I don't believe anything Trump has been involved in will be remembered as much as the Watergate scandal. Most people now do not remember why Bill Clinton was impeached — if they ever knew. Yes, Trump has had a turbulent term, but it's only four years of his life, and he hasn't been convicted of anything.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  That is stunningly contrary to published sources, opinion polling, and the nature of this encyclopedia. His recent fame as a TV personality is one among thousands of these - they come and go. Tell us about Arthur Godfrey, Bill Cullen, and John Daly -- all more famous than Trump in their heydays. Your personal opinion about Trump vs. Nixon is not only irrelevant, but like the notability stuff it's also contrary to RS narratives. SPECIFICO talk 18:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support adding "impeached twice", without comment on his political career. Yes, he had 70 long, divisive, years before politics. But, and I don't think this is really CRYSTALBALL, he will be primarily remembered for getting impeached twice. It would probably be wrong to mention he (is/was) president without that footnote, even. Kingsif (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The notability of T****'s presidency, corruption, and impeachments dwarf his ancient business career, so include it all in the first paragraph. -- Valjean (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Ancient??? How is it ancient???--Jack Upland (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support: We do need to acknowledge that they were doing something, (real estate work?) before their presidential term, and early life/ background sections serve this purpose sufficiently. Their presidential term, public perception of it, and their creating history by accomplishing two impeachments in a single term are the most notable highlights that make this subject notable for a Wikipedia article, and I would expect to see them in the introductory paragraph in any article about them. _morelMW^illiam
• Comment: Today, a sentence describing Trump as the first American president of the United States to have no prior military or government career, and was at the time the oldest first-term U.S. president was added to the first paragraph of the lead that we are discussing here. This is not what I would prioritize in that paragraph, and the material about his age is almost trivial here. I would rather see a sentence that said something of substance about his presidency, as proposed above rather than pointing out his age or his background (which is discussed in detail in the very next paragraph). --Tataral (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose that claim made in the first paragraph falls afoul of WP:UNDUE weight, in addition to this being a WP:BLP. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see any reason why the first paragraph should change. It does its job fine and follows the past several presidential articles in being a simple, fact based overview of the person's life. The language suggested for the sentence would also make the article appear even more biased than it already does, by trying to realign the lead to focus even more on purely negative aspects about Trump. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  "fact based overview of the person's life": Except that it doesn't, it leaves out the most important aspects. Other well-developed articles on heads of state, especially those who weren't considered "normal" or "routine" officeholders, include something about what they are famous for. E.g. the first paragraph of Adolf Hitler (Note: not a general comparison of Trump and Hitler, just the structure of their articles), which doesn't just state when he was chancellor and his former profession, but the key aspects of his rule as well. The current paragraph was essentially written before Trump took office, before there was much to say about his presidency. It does no longer adequately summarise his life, after he has become known as the "most corrupt" and "worst" US president in history, the only one to be impeached twice, for inciting an insurrection and so on. --Tataral (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Being the first president to be impeached twice is not merely noteworthy, it's historic. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support this is one of the main things that trump is known for. (t · c) buidhe 22:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose This is simply not the kind of thing that belongs in the first sentence/lead paragraph of a biography. That section defines, in the most concrete and neutral manner, who the person is or was, and what they have done. And that's all. The lead paragraph is absolutely not the place for throwing in a judgment call about how they performed during the last four years. If something like this is to be added, it should be at the END of the lead section, where we are talking about his presidency. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support "twice impeached" in the first paragraph somewhere, as it's (per sources) probably the single most significant thing that distinguishes him from other presidents, historically. Although it's really too soon to be making such an assessment, I think it significant enough for the lead paragraph. Oppose "widely accused of abuse of power and corruption" because that is true of every president, and really every politician. There are other, more-significant things about Trump than accusations of abuse of power and corruption (such as racism, divisiveness, profiteering [which is more specific than "corruption"]). Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose The sentence which summarises the aspects of his presidency belongs to the end of the lead, where we are talking about his presidency, not to the first paragraph. Felix558 (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral I think it could be worded better to comply with NPOV. Trump's presidency is very broad. With that in mind if that is the consensus amongst the Scholarly sources, the US population sure. I am not sure there is enough consensus on this however. We really, really need to not use hyperbolic statements. I personally hate Trump but still, we can't write an article on how he is a complete demon. Des Vallee (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support "impeached twice" That is extremely historic and therefor should certainly first paragraph material. Des Vallee (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The wording will surely evolve, but it's clear that this is an historic headline of his biography. For comparison, Encyclopedia Britannica allocates 132 words - more than half of their first paragraph - addressing Trump's double impeachment and related election loss:

  Trump was the third president in U.S. history (after Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998) to be impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives and the only president to be impeached twice—once (in 2019) for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in connection with the Ukraine scandal (he was acquitted of those charges by the U.S. Senate in 2020) and once (in 2021) for “incitement of insurrection” in connection with the storming of the United States Capitol by a violent mob of Trump supporters as Congress met in joint session to ceremonially count electoral college votes from the 2020 presidential election. Trump lost that election to former vice president Joe Biden by 306 electoral votes to 232; he lost the popular vote by more than seven million votes.[3] Alsee (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I may be confused, but you all are just trying to throw that biased, irrelevant sentence onto the end of the 1st paragraph that discusses his business career? This proposer is clearly politically motivated. This article is already bad enough, lets not make it worse. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose His impeachments should not be added to the first paragraph of his article. It should remain in the lead as it has historical significance and is consistent with the placement of the other two impeached presidents. While he was impeached twice, it is not as significant as him resigning; ie Nixon or being found guilty of the charges that were brought up for articles of impeachment. In time, if he were to be found guilty of inciting violence and was therefore not able to run for future political office, than I would say that is a historic and significant factor that should be in the main paragraph such as President Nixon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.63.185 (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Language copied from thread above

I propose the language proposed above by @Neutrality: be combined with the language under discussion above and be placed in the first or second paragraph of the lead. To wit, let's combine this

Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden but refused to concede defeat. Trump attempted to overturn the results by making false claims of electoral fraud, pressuring government officials, mounting dozens of unsuccessful legal challenges, and stymieing the presidential transition. During Congress's counting of the electoral votes on January 6, 2021, Trump urged supporters to march on the Capitol, which they then stormed, forcing Congress to evacuate.

with this,

Throughout his presidency he has been widely accused of abuse of power and corruption, and he has been impeached twice.

SPECIFICO talk 18:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Still against the "has been" verb tense...unsure what "widely" means...

Throughout his presidency he was regularly accused of abuse of power and corruption, and he was twice impeached.

 ? Bdushaw (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead sentence proposal

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

• A: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.
• B: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality and businessman who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.
• C: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality and real estate developer who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.
• D: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality and real estate developer who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.
• E: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality.
• F: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality.
• G: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American television and media personality, businessman, real estate developer, and politician who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.
• H: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American television and media personality, businessman, real estate developer, and politician who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.
• I: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality. Added SPECIFICO talk 02:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• J: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Before entering politics, he was a television and media personality. (Added by PyroFloe (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC))

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

Note to closer: This discussion is a continuation of the discussion at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 131#First paragraph on Inauguration Day, and there have been several other forks. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• A or F - per my previous arguments. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• ACBD, but add "the", i.e. "who served as the 45th...". ValarianB (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• A - per above. Businessman is more encompassing. In order: ACBD. ChipotleHater (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• F - Changing vote to F. The last two are very clunky and don't read well, but I think that we should mention he's an American Politician first. ChipotleHater (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• ACBD, adding 'the' after 'served as'. Jonmaxras (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• A B, with 'the' in front of '45th'. Qexigator (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

But agree with comment below "...is an American businessman, media personality and politician who served as..." would be even better. Qexigator (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• F, as it more closely matches the style of the into sentence in similar articles such as Barack Obama. A, with 'the' in front of '45th' is the best choice among these 4. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• A - per above. throast (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• A first choice, B also OK, don't like C or D. Agree with adding "the". -- MelanieN (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC) Additional comment: I oppose E, F, G, and H. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment — This doesn't have all of the options discussed here. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 20:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  No, it doesn't, because none of those options gained consensus. These options are built around incorporating the comments from that month+ of discussion. If you think there's another option that's more likely to gain consensus than these 4 (or, at this point, than A), please add it, and please let us know which option you think is best. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• He's not a media personality, businessman or real estate developer. He is a politician. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• B,A,D,C.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Note: I have added options E and F, which received substantial support in the prior discussions. I'm not too hopeful that this new survey is set up well enough to give us a definitive result, but I guess here we go. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  To expand on why I'm not hopeful, this makes the same mistake we made at the earlier discussion of trying to introduce wholesale options rather than consider individual components. That works when you only have one or two questions, but it doesn't work when you have more than that. And we have substantially more than that: "was" vs. "served as", "businessman" vs. "real estate developer", "the 45th" vs. "45th", what and how to wikilink over his presidency, "is a [politician]/[businessman and media personality]", etc. Every time someone wants to introduce another question, the discussion will spiral further until we have the same situation as we had above. Each question needs to be considered on its own terms, not bunched into wholesale proposals. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but it doesn't look as though anyone is listening. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• E. Being president of the United States makes you a politician. Everything he did prior to that was notable, but not nearly as notable as his political activities, so those should be what primarily defines him. "Was" is more neutral than "served as", which is listed as an example of non-neutral euphemistic language at MOS:WTW. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  Looking at how this is developing, I urge the closer to keep in mind WP:NOTVOTE. MOS:WTW is a guideline, whereas the best argument in favor of "served as", that it is used for many past presidents, amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFF (and it's not even a good otherstuff case, as per the this very comprehensive analysis, plenty of past presidents have used "was"). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• E - I agree with Sdkb that E is the most neutral. Also, the structure of the sentence places emphasis on his presidency, which no doubt will be his legacy, and most likely what people will visit the article to read about. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 22:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Still A for me; calling Trump a politician implies he's had at least a somewhat notable political career outside of his presidency, which is not the case. Jonmaxras (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • F then E. Fundamentally is a "politican" (as in a person who holds a political office) even though he is not considered the the typical politian (i.e. only serving as president with no prior government experience like representative/senator/governor) and that is what is most notable for now. I prefer "Served as" as because fundamentally he is still the 45th president just that that 45th is longer in office in any capacity (like notice how Obama and George W. Bush were introduced at the Inarguartion they introduced as the 44th and 43rd president), in addition to keeping consistency with every other president bio I see no reason to stop using it here. Moreover, "served as" is netural and no such notice (I can find) is on WP:WAF and if it was not is should not be on any other politian's bio. Regardless of whether he served president poorly/excellently he fundamentally still served in the office (also was makes it seems like he is deceased). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• A A politician by definition is someone who is in politics professionally. He only served as president for 4 years. If he seeks or holds a different office I would consider labeling him as a politician but a single office for a single term does not warrent the title imo. Plus, I don't see many RS labeling him as one. The first option is the most straightforward and neutral. Anon0098 (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  Reliable sources don't call Trump a politician? What? It seems we've been through this before, so I'll just refer you to the list Scjessey easily compiled offhand; plenty more are available. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

If being President of the United States = being a 'politician', no need to add 'politician'. but Trump's only notable participation in political activity has been running for, holding, and leaving office as POTUS. Qexigator (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

He wasn't POTUS when he ran, and he isn't POTUS now. He was and is a politician, per RS (New Yorker, WaPo Someone running for office isn't a politician? An elected official isn't a politician? How does that work?) and per Trump himself when it suited him (same WaPo source). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• A, C, F all okay, my preferences go in that order. Anything that says "was" with "president" is unacceptable as he always will be the 45th president - and the use of "was" thus implies he died. This is pure english grammar/definitions - it is appalling that this requires a discussion and that some people refuse to accept "served as" as appropriate here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• I'll be honest, I honestly don't care how he is labeled (business man/politician/etc.) However, A, C, and F should be the only ones we should consider since they all use the verbiage "who served as 45th President of the United States". The majority of US President articles use that wording, so we should be consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:446:400:7F10:2976:5E8C:8F7F:EC9F (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• H (first choice), G (second choice), in order of importance for Trump’s life trajectory. Television, i.e., The Apprentice made him a household name; media (press) helped him sell himself by treating him like entertainment for decades; media (social) - I don’t think I need to explain; businessman and real estate developer - see Trump Org. see below; politician - one term as president, ran at least one time prior to 2016. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Reversed order of preference. Khajidha pointed out that "served as" can be read as loaded negatively. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Real estate developer: It's a special subset of "businessman" and what he was doing from the early seventies to the early nineties, with spectacular success and failures. Businessman: President of Trump Org. which also had and has other business than real estate development (brandname licensing, golf courses, vineyard, hotel management). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose A, B, C, D. Second sentence of E and F: The second paragraph deals with that, so it's not needed here. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Space4Time3Continuum2x: I'm not sure what you mean. Do you oppose A, B, C, and D? Or are A, B, C, D your top choices? I'm confused... :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused by this entire process 8-). I oppose A, B, C, and D (and the second sentence of E and F, but I'm OK with the first one). My choices are G and H in the preceding bullet point. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Opppose A is the best here. Although I dislike refering to him as a businessman in the present tense, during his presidency he divested himself of his business intrests and he remains a media personality, perhaps Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality who served as 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Before entering politics he was a businessman and real estate developer. Might work as a good compromise? Hazelforest (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

he divested himself of his business intrests No, he didn't. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump certainly did not divest from his business interests while in office. Neutrality^talk 22:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x:@Neutrality:Trump removed control of his businesses to his sons, meaning he no longer meets the definition of "businessman" because he no longer (directly) controls any businesses(and by removing himself from direct control he has divested himself of his business, allbeit partially). Due to the fact this is contensious I softened my stance from "former-businessman" to just mentioning he was a businessman before his presidency Hazelforest (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump stated that he transferred "his business holdings to a trust run by the sons. He refused to sell his ownership stake, a step that many ethics lawyers say is critical to avoid conflicts of interest" [4]. He didn’t divest himself of his business interests like previous presidents did, i.e., sell or close his businesses or put them in a qualified blind trust to avoid conflicts of interest [5]. He still owns the business and is profiting from it, [6] whether he's involved in the day-to-day management or not. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Generally "Businessman" refers to managers, not just stakeholders, Trump has handed managment to his sons(which I also agree did not sufficently distance himself from them for COI purposes). I do not deny that Trump still holds stakes in businesses.Hazelforest (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Generally I agree but Trump never signaled any intention to step away from Trump Org for good. If you take a long sabbatical, do you stop being what you are? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Hazelforest: I'm not sure what you mean. I guess your "Opppose" means you are opposed to all options, but "A is the best here" means you find A the least bad? — Chrisahn (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: Yep that's exactly what I mean(although, I mistyped and added an extra "p" Hazelforest (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support D or E as the best and most straightforward wording. Second choice B. Oppose A, C, F, G due to the totally needless "served as" (the term "was" is shorter, simpler, accurate, and neutral, and being concise is important for space reasons). Mildly oppose H due to wordiness and redundancy (a real estate developer is a type of businessman, and a TV personality is a type of media personality). Neutrality^talk 22:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• F (first choice), G (second choice). Felix558 (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• H. He's not primarily a politician, and "served as" is quite a stretch. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

"Served as" is pretty standard language for presidential bio articles. Not saying "served as" in the first sentence of this article when all the other presidential articles use that verbiage shows a clear bias. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• D or E per Neutrality. Mgasparin (talk) 10:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: The argument over "was" vs "served as" is one of the strangest things to argue over. An analysis here shows that "served as" is used for decent/good presidents and "was" for worse/less known presidents, which is interesting. With things as they are, I'm afraid it would be seen as biased to use "was" for Trump when the modern presidents all use "served as" except Nixon, who many people think was not a good president. I agree, a subtle POV push, or something which could be reasonably construed as such, in the opening sentence of the lead is unacceptable. As this semantic difference is otherwise meaningless, we should probably aim to be consistent with other recent presidents and use "served as". How good or bad Trump was as a president is irrelevant. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  I dare say this survey shows the "was" argument is dead. All of the options that use "served as" (ACFG) are favored over all the options that use "was" (BDEH) by a margin of 17-7 so far. Similarly, "businessman" is beating "real estate developer" by a wide margin. FYI right now it's polling at 11x A>F, 5x F>A, 2x A=F, and 6x neither A nor F. At some point when participation slows down I was thinking we might ping the "neithers" to see if they want to express a preference one of the two leading choices (A and F). Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

How are you going to count the votes for "C > A > F" and "A, D, F, G," in that order, e.g., not to mention "Oppose A, C, F, G", e.g.? Wiki table with "support as first to fifth choice, opposed?" or just disregard all that and just count first choice, as your comment suggests? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Short answer: "C>A>F" counts for A, because C is not getting enough support to be a finalist. "A,D,F,G in that order" counts for A, first choice. "Oppose A, C, F, G" counts for neither A nor F (nor C nor G, but those aren't getting much support anyway), it's a "neither" vote.

Long answer: As of now, I count 27 responses, including 12 for A as first choice (e.g. "A,D,F,G in that order"), 4 for F as first choice, and 2 for A or F as equivalent first choice. The other options each received fewer than 4 first-choice votes. So out of 27 respondents, 18 think it should be either A or F as their first choice, while 9 think it should be something other than A or F, as their first choice.

Looking at those 9 who didn't pick A or F as first choice, 3 of the 9 picked A as a second or third choice (e.g., "C>A>F"), ahead of F, and 1 picked F (or the first sentence of it) ahead of A. So we can count those as 3 additional "A" votes and 1 additional "F" vote, bringing the "A" total up to 15, and the "F" total up to 5. That leaves 5 votes that opposed both A and F (e.g. "Oppose A, C, F, G"), or that didn't express a preference for one over the other; those are the "neither" votes.

Altogether, out of 27 votes: 15 for A>F, 5 for F>A, 2 for either, and 5 for neither. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Would be so much simpler and clearer to put up the six proposals (media personality, businessman, real-estate developer, television personality, politician, media and television personality) individually, ditto the two verb proposals (served as/was), and ask for a simple support/oppose on each one separately. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

It was obvious to me from the start that the majority of editors who insisted on "was" were driven by animosity towards the man who is the subject of this article. They don't like the connotation of "served" since they despise him (for example, see comment above by AleatoryPonderings). However, those editors forgot one of the main rules we have here: Content must be written from a neutral point of view. I agree that a bias would be obvious in this article if "was" stays in the first sentence, since we are using "served as" for practically all other former officials. Also, as Levivich said, we can not use "was" in the first sentence since he will always be the 45th president. Felix558 (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I oppose using "serving" for any political figure, not just Trump. I happen to think Trump didn't serve anyone but himself, but I also think that "serving as" is an inappropriate convention. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 221#"Serving as" in lede of politics articles. I also think it's silly to include ordinals like 45th as, IMO, they add no helpful context or meaning. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

They're both neutral expressions. "Be" is one of the synonyms for "serve as." If you go back far enough in the editing history for each president, you'll find different editors replacing "was" with "served as" and vice versa, based on personal preference. Teddy Roosevelt, one of the analysis's examples for "served as" is also an example for "was". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree with ProcrReader, Levivich, Felix558. Also, that analysis is flawed. For Richard Nixon, we have "was the 37th president of the United States, serving from 1969 until 1974", and from April 2019 to January 2020 we had the standard "was an American politician who served as". And even for James Buchanan, who is consistently ranked as one of the worst presidents, we say "served as". — Chrisahn (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• C > A > F - he was President, but he still is the 45th President. starship.paint (exalt) 14:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Like the Highlander, there can only be one. Trump is a former president who was the 45th one. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• A, C, F in that order. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• A, C follow our guidelines and the precedent set in hundreds of other articles.--Moxy 🍁 17:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• A, C, F, G – but "...is an American businessman, media personality and politician who served as..." would be even better. Rationale: 1. Occupations should be sorted in order of chronology and duration in his life. 2. He has only been a politician for a few years, but that's what he will be most remembered for. 3. "real estate developer" and "television personality" are too specific, he's done lots of other stuff; "businessman" and "media personality" are better. 4. Definitely "served as" – it's the standard wording for former officials of all kinds. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Problem I have with "was" as the lead currently reads is that he is and will always be the 45th president of the United States. Saying he "was the 45th president from 2017 to 2021" kind of misses the point then, which "served as" or "serving" would resolve. I'm genereally not opposed to "was" in leads of living people but in this context it feels inadequate. throast (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• A, C, G, F; in that order SRD625 (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• F, E, G, H, A, B, C, D. I'm partial to "served as". Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 23:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• A or B "real estate developer" is WP:UNDUE and potentially misleading given how much of his business history has nothing to do with real estate development (he calls himself, and his allies call him, a builder or a real estate developer, but third-party sources are more likely to refer to the franchising of his name/image, scams like Trump University, etc.). Prioritizing "politician", as the article currently does, is similarly problematic, as he never worked in politics before becoming president and likely never will again, so out of a notable career spanning roughly fifty years he was only a politician for four; on top of that, arguably he was "better-known" as a Twitter personality than as a politician even while president, and there is no shortage of press referring to then-president Trump as a reality TV star. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• B, D, E, H - "served as" is overly florid language and borders on false, as it implies (at least in my dialect) that he was not the actual president but was only filling in. --Khajidha (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

If we aren't going to say "served as" in this article, then we're going to have to have a larger request for comment about removing that language from all presidential biography articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Fine with me. "Get it right here, then get it right elsewhere" makes much more sense than "well, its messed up everywhere else, so we might as well match". --Khajidha (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Rreagan007, is there an actual rule that says we have to follow the practice in other articles? Seems to me this was discussed a few times on this talk page and the answer was no. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, there is no such rule, and in fact WP:OTHERSTUFF advises against using precedent in that way. I also need to reiterate that it is not accurate to characterize "served as" as the general practice for other articles; per ONUnicorn's analysis, there is a bunch of each. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• E is succinct lead-appropriate language and NPOV. Strongly oppose "served as", for reasons widely noted at previous talk threads. It adds no meaning and some readers would understood it as implicit endorsement of his conduct in office. SPECIFICO talk 18:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC) I have added K J16:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC) that omits the disputed "is a politician" while keeping the important meaning of the opening. I endorse anything that is short and doesn't say "served..." SPECIFICO talk 02:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC) fixed typo16:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

By removing the "is a politician" you have removed the explicit indication that he is still alive. --Khajidha (talk) 12:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, where did you add K? I don't see it in the list of options. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

It's actually J. Though I'm not entirely sure why we skipped I. --Khajidha (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it: typo :) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Requesting that whatever the result of this discussion, it be retroactively applied -if not to all former US presidents & vice presidents bios - then to the more recent former prez & vice prez bios intros. It would be editorially sloppy, to make this 'one' bios different from the rest. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  It's been noted several times here that we have no such principle. SPECIFICO talk 16:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  While we can't use this discussion as a direct basis for making changes elsewhere (because, per WP:CONLEVEL, a talk page only has jurisdiction over its associated article), there'd be nothing wrong with building on this discussion once it's over with a wider discussion about the use of "served as". It shouldn't be limited to just U.S. presidents/VPs, as there are lots of other pages on Wikipedia that use the phrase and perhaps should not. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Every other US president and vice-president in recent history has been a career politician, and so can reasonably be described as "X is/was an American politician who served as the Yth president of the United States" or some slight variant thereof. The one possible exception I can think of was Reagan, who is hardly remembered as an actor today and (I think?) wasn't even that well-known as such before he entered politics. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

You're right, and I don't think Reagan is an exception (a politician for ~20 years, and two-term governor of California, before being elected president on his second try). See List of presidents of the United States by previous experience. Trump is the only US president to have neither served in public office nor the military before becoming president. That's why I don't support defining him as a politician in the opening sentence. Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

You’re both wrong about Trump being the only president in recent history who wasn’t a career politician before becoming president. (How do you define "recent history?" I’d say that’s at least as far back as WW II, a period quite a few people alive today remember.) Dwight D. Eisenhower’s WP article calls him an American politician, and he didn’t run for or hold any political office, either elected or appointed, before running for president. Whether someone served in the military or not is just a statistic; it has no bearing on whether he is a politician. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

You've got "recent" mixed up with "modern". Eisenhower left office well over half a century ago -- that's not "recent". Moreover, even had the 1950s been within the scope of what I was thinking of, the distinction you make between "politics" and "military administration" is arbitrary and irrelevant to this article. It seems like you went back through the list of presidents to find the "most recent" contrary example you could give, without considering whether it would make sense to do so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a mind reader and don't know what you were thinking of. Modern history is the period after the Middle Ages. You wrote "recent history" which usually refers to the last century or two, as in this example. "Recent presidents" depends on context and point of view, as in A ranking of 12 recent presidents from Dwight Eisenhower to Donald Trump ([7]). And where did I make a distinction ... between "politics" and "military administration" or even mention military administration, for that matter? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Modern history is the period after the Middle Ages. That depends on the context. In Japan, "early modern" (近世) refers to the period after 1600, and immediately follows, yes, the "middle ages" (中世), but indeed the word that most closely approximates "modern" in a Japanese historiographical context, 現代, refers to the period after 1945; but in secondary school in Ireland I'm pretty sure I was taught that "modern" meant either post-Enlightenment or post-Industrial Revolution, and while "early modern" in European history can refer to the Renaissance (i.e., "modern" can mean "after the Middle Ages"), this is something I definitely did not learn in school, and had to read specialist historical works after graduating university. Given that the US didn't exist during the European Middle Ages, it doesn't make sense to use that definition of "modern" when describing the history of the United States presidency, as George Washington would then be a "modern" president.

And where did I make a distinction ... between "politics" and "military administration" or even mention military administration, for that matter? You said that Eisenhower had not been a politician nor "run for or hold any political office" before running for president. Moreover, this isn't really the main issue -- Eisenhower is long dead, his life, pre-POTUS career, and presidential administration have been discussed in numerous historical books and articles, and we can use those to determine how to write that article, while Trump has only not been a former president for about a week and we are stuck either working his political career, such as it was, into the description that our article on him has used since c2004.

Anyway, why are we talking about this? Please stay on-topic.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Stay on topic? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

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

There won't be another 45th president—so I can keep my "45 es un títere t-shirt—but he's not president now, and present tense is incorrect. It's an unofficial numbering system which counts Grover Cleveland twice because his terms were nonconsecutive. Another numbering system (number of men who were president) lists Trump as 44. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The example you name explicitly says he served as the 39th president of the United States. "Barack Obama was the 44th president" gets thousands of hits on Google News, while "Barack Obama is the 44th president" gets only six that don't date to the time when he was actually the sitting president; the latter is ungrammatical unless, say, we are talking about numbered placement in a specific visible list. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

It then boils down to whether the numbering scheme is per popular culture or formal correctness. I had in mind the Bush presidents noted as 41 and 43 in present, e.g., if you were talking of President Bush, you had to note whether you were talking of 41 or 43. If it is as noted that the numbering scheme is neither pop culture nor formal, then past tense is certainly appropriate, "was" or "served as". "Served as" seems universally used...perhaps time to throw in the towel and go with what everyone else is using? Sometimes it is difficult to fight word usage that is universal (however wrong). Bdushaw (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

In the case of the Bushes, it is neither pop culture nor formal correctness, it is simply a convenient means of disambiguation. --Khajidha (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• A or C – "served as" is fine; avoids "was" and "politician". Ewulp (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  NB Served is past tense, just like Wuzzed. SPECIFICO talk 17:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Right, and that's fine because he's not serving anymore, but is still the 45th US President. Ewulp (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• C or A Keep it consistent with how we do other presidents. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• I or E I think I is best. I do believe him being president should be mentioned first. I do strongly oppose the ones that put "television personality" before president or businessman because that is what he is least notable for. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment (J or A), The current lede is worded in a way where it seems that he is not a businessman anymore, even though he is still a businessman with his business conglomerate named "The Trump Organization". Referring to the "was" part. I think the choices from A - I before I added J are lacking a substantial information. HE IS STILL A POLITICIAN AND BUSINESSMAN. I would say match it with George W. Bush's lede with a slight change to "served as the __th president of the United States". Adding to that, the phrase "was the 45th president of the United States" is kind of misleading since he is permanently the 45th president of the United States even if he passes away. PyroFloe (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  he is permanently the 45th president of the United States This statement is ungrammatical. Describing a former president (whether they are alive or dead is irrelevant) as "is the Xth president" is wrong, unless we are talking about their placement on a specific, visible list, which the opening sentence of this biographical article definitely is not. No other article on a US president, living or dead, seems to disagree with this assessment. What's more, there does not seem to have been any confusion over this matter four years ago when Obama left office. Why are multiple editors making it an issue this time? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  Okay, I'll bite, how about this: he will always be the 45th president of the United States, and as such, saying "was" implies that he is no longer living? You're right - every other article on a living former president uses "served as" - why can't this one? Also made a minor edit to your indent per MOS:LISTGAP Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  "Served as" strikes me as either 1) overly florid ("Oh, it's no bother! I'm proud to serve.") or 2) implying that he wasn't really the president (only serving as such until a real president could be selected). Rather than change this article to match this poor usage, it would be better to change the others to use "was". And saying that he was the 45th president no more implies that he is dead than saying that I was a cashier at a grocery store implies that I am dead. --Khajidha (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, that's not how the English language works. Virtually every single news source that describes Obama as "is the 44th president" dates to the period when he was currently the president; those few that don't are generally either poorly written or are saying things like "There he is, the 44th president".[8] It's theoretically possible to interpret "was the 44th president" as meaning that he has been retroactively expunged from the list of presidents and is no longer officially considered to have been the 44th (as happened in Japan with the Northern Court emperors, i.e., "Obama was the 44th president then, but now Trump is the 44th president and Biden the 45th"), but I highly doubt that that is what, say, The Washington Post, The Independent and ABC News mean. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment for User:Khajidha: You are forgetting we are talking here only about Wikipedia, not about everyday conversations. Wikipedia has a long-standing practice of using "IS" for living people in the first sentence of the lead, and "WAS" for deceased people. For example, see Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, François Mitterrand, Emmanuel Macron, Thomas Jefferson, Jim Clyburn, etc. - there is an endless number of examples. Using "served as" is a great way to avoid using "was" for former public officials who are still alive. Felix558 (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

1) How things are done in other article is not binding on this article, 2) especially if things are done badly in other articles, 3) you will notice that, for example, things in Gates's life that have ended are described using "was". Gates WAS a National Merit Scholar. Just as Trump WAS president. Neither of those men are those things anymore.--Khajidha (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

What Wikipedia has a long-standing practice of is using "is" immediately after the name of the subject if the subject is a living person, hence Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality (which is standard English usage, not unique to Wikipedia at all); subsequent subordinate/relative clauses use the verb tense that makes the most grammatical sense. Saying he "is" the 44th president is equivalent to rewriting the opening paragraph of the article body to say At age 13, he is enrolled in the New York Military Academy or even editing further down the article to say While Trump is credited as co-author, the entire book was ghostwritten by Tony Schwartz. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Post–presidency (2021–present)

To explain why I said this heading was ridiculous, it's "2021-present". Um...??? And I think "Post–presidency" is too vague. You can defend it all you like but I don't think this heading will last the year.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Jack Upland Well, what would you suggest as an improvement? Mgasparin (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

What’s so weird about it? SRD625 (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The present is 2021.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but it won't be 2021 next year... Again, do you have any suggestions for an improvement, because I can't think of any. Mgasparin (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

But as I said, I don't think this heading is going to last the year. There's no point having a heading that will be silly for many months. The dates are completely unneeded at the moment, and they will probably never been relevant. I don't think we need this section at the moment. It looks like the next event will be the Senate trial. The article is already outsized, and we don't need a Trump blog detailing what he's doing each week. We can create a section when there's something substantial to say.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

But the heading is accurate. I wouldn't bother with the (2021–present) bit, though. GoodDay (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Since 2021?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This is pointless. "Post-presidency" is fine. In 2022 it might make sense to use "2021–present", but 2021 right now is the present, and "Since 2021" is ambiguous and confusing (implies 2022+ to too many people, depending on their dialect). There's no reason to even change away from "Post-presidency" in 2022 unless there's so much material i needs to be broken up into year subsections. A decision made on a section title now has no implication for what heading title to use next year; just discuss it again. WP:NOT#PAPER and all that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Trump has been out of office for little more than a week and already this section has three paragraphs. This is absurd.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Mention Trump being the oldest president at the time?

William Henry Harrison and Reagan have their headlines and articles mention they were the oldest president at the time. Trump was older than either. Just because it was broken one term later by Biden does not change the fact that at the time, Trump was the oldest president ever elected. I feel that it is important to bring it up in the article, to acknowledge a historical fact, even if it was out dated. I mean, let's not forget that we were only roughly 120K votes from four states away from having a second term with him, and therefore him remaining the oldest president ever (probably for several decades). So let's not pretend like him losing the record was a foreseen conclusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.41.187.160 (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe it's mentioned somewhere. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Can mark this as  Done. -MaximusEditor (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Removal of allegations that he was a Russian asset

An editor has removed all coverage of well-respected journalist Craig Unger's new book American Kompromat that detailed allegations that Trump was a Russian asset:

• "'The perfect target': Russia cultivated Trump as asset for 40 years – ex-KGB spy". The Guardian. Retrieved 30 January 2021.
• "KGB groomed Trump as an asset for 40 years, former Russian spy says". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 30 January 2021.
• Former KGB spy claims Trump has been wooed by Russia for decades (The Independent)
• Donald Trump war offenbar jahrzehntelang auf dem Radar des KGB (Der Spiegel)
• Donald Trump, un atout pour la Russie, repéré il y a 40 ans par le KGB (Le Point)
• (just examples; there are hundreds of articles about this)

This widely reported information clearly needs to be mentioned in this article. --Tataral (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

No, one allegation does not need to be reported - none of the articles you present actually show any credibility to the claim, they simply report on it for clickbait purposes and to get their ad revenue. That is not due weight for this article at this time, and I stand by my reversion of the addition of a very controversial/negative claim on a BLP before discussion on addition based on a few sources which are all based on the same book. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• (apologies for the edit that I just noticed was made, was using the beta edit conflict resolution tool and it was not clear that would be changed) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The Guardian and the other sources are regarded by Wikipedia as reliable sources of good quality, regardless of your personal views about their advertisements outlined above. --Tataral (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

And those sources all provide absolutely no commentary on it of their own. They merely quote the book/book's author. I wrote an essay about this "source laundering" where people try to use "reliable sources" to report what ultimately is unreliable information simply because it's been republished in a reliable source here. That may be useful to read. Regardless, an exceptional claim made by one person in one book that has not yet been confirmed or collaborated by any other sources is not due for this article whatsoever. I'll note I have no problem with sites advertising - they have to make money somehow. But one must remember (and Wikipedia guidelines even encourage us to consider) that not all webpages/pieces of information which originate from a reliable source's website are the same level of reliability. I'm not saying this can never be added. But "any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources" and right now you have one source - it's a book - duplicated a few times in other sources, but at its core, it's one source, and it's not even high quality at that. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not the only source that has raised this concern. It has been reported elsewhere since at least 2018. [9][10][11][12][13][14] SPECIFICO talk 14:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, Trump's suspected Russia ties really define his presidency, and we need a section that presents an overview of his suspected business ties to Russia over the last decades and long-standing suspicions that he is either a Russian asset or trying to curry favour with Putin for some reason. There is a large body of articles that in different ways discuss Trump's suspected business or other ties to Russia. Some other examples: [15][16][17] --Tataral (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Saying he’s a Russian “agent” requires multiple sources to lend credibility to these claims. While the claims have been reported in multiple sources, they have not been confirmed or validated by any of the sources you link to. Feel free to start an RfC or seek other editors opinions, but per WP:EXCEPTIONAL this should not be included unless multiple high quality sources have confirmed such an allegation. As BLP is an exception to edit warring/revert rules, you should expect it to be removed again unless you find sources that actually themselves claim he was a Russian agent, as opposed to just repeating what one or two books have said without actually saying the reliable source agrees with that information. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a content and sourcing issue, not a BLP problem. SPECIFICO talk 15:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Claiming Trump was a Russian asset sourced to two books one of which cites a KGB operative (not reliable for this) does not comply with WP:EXCEPTIONAL, no matter how many reliable sources simply repeat those courtrooms, unless the reliable source is saying “we verified this claim ourself” which none of them do. You’re right - this is a sourcing issue, and exceptional claims require multiple high quality sources, which you have not met. As such, it is a BLP issue until the sourcing is resolved. Feel free to start an RFC or wait for other editors input if you wish. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

1) Nobody has called him a Russian "agent", that is a pure strawman on your part. 2) This discussion is concerned with the need for a section on his suspected Russian business ties, that have received a ton of coverage over many years, and the claim that it's all based on that one new book is false. Many of the examples cited in this discussion predate that book. Since you unilaterally removed the whole section, it hasn't been possible to develop it further, but it should include more than just the material on that one book, e.g. material based on some of the other sources cited in this discussion by SPECIFICO. --Tataral (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLPPUBLIC. Note that nobody proposes calling him a Russian agent in Wikivoice. SPECIFICO talk 16:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with the removal per WP:NOTNEWS, since this is a recent book. While its publication was reported in mainstream media, we cannot yet know how accepted the views will become. My guess is that based on the author's record it won't. See for example, "These dots don't join up," (David Leigh, The Guardian 29 Jul 2004.) The article says Unger assembled a number of facts to imply a conspiracy about 911 that did not exist. TFD (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• I also agree with the removal. If we can't say it in wikivoice, it doesn't belong in the top-level article, it's not significant enough for inclusion. This is one allegation, it belongs as an attributed statement in the appropriate sub-article. I also agree with the NOTNEWS rationale for exclusion, plus, this is absolutely a WP:BLP concern, as "Trump was cultivated as a Russian asset for over 40 years and proved very willing to parrot anti-western propaganda" is a controversial statement about a living person. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with the removal. Such claims can not be based on a recent book writen by author with such low credibility, or on reports in media which only repeat what was written in this book (without giving any proof to such claims). Felix558 (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• I support removal. We already have the Muller Report saying there was no credible evidence of Russian collusion. One poorly backed allegation doesn't deserve this much coverage within the page Anon0098 (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  No. Mueller did not say that at all, according to his report and RS. SPECIFICO talk 19:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• I support removal per WP:NOTNEWS. Also, I have to say: this likely won't hold up. For anyone familiar with how Intel/the KGB worked.....this story is just preposterous. (At least as it is presented in these articles.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• I disagree with the removal. It should stay because if a POTUS has been cultivated for 40 years by the KGB, then that's definitely notable. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 21:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • User:Thanoscar21 - big if. The allegations are flimsy at best, from someone with a shady reputation, and haven’t been confirmed or otherwise corroborated by any other sources than the original book. This is a BLP violation to include at this point - and that’s been agreed by multiple other editors. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

    Berchanhimez, we don't need to call him an asset in Wikivoice; we can call it a claim or an allegation; if the Guardian and the Independent report it, then it's not a tabloid-y thing. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 22:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

    No, we can’t, based on a single source. The Guardian and Independent aren’t “reporting” it, they are “repeating it”. They haven’t independently verified it, and that’s clear by the tone of their articles. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

    First, the book is not based on a single person's statements. Second, this has been a longstanding subject of concern in mainstream RS accounts, including documented concerns of top former US intelligence officials. We do not need to cite that particular book or allegation, but the subject more broadly treated and with fine sourcing does belong in this article. It's certainly no BLP violation to cite well sourced widespread public discussion of his strange behaviors, campaign associations, and funding relationships. SPECIFICO talk 22:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

    Per WP:EXTRAORDINARY it isn’t appropriate to even make insinuations about this topic without multiple high quality sources, as this is an extraordinary and negative claim about a living person. You are in the minority here and multiple others have agreed that it’s a BLP violation, at least as currently sourced. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

    We have many top RS discussing the concerns of many intelligence experts. Also, the secondary coverage of the book is what matters. We have books about atomic fission by authors who have not themselves achieved it at home. SPECIFICO talk 23:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

    And you’ll note that the article on atomic fusion does not mention these people who wrote quack books with false claims based on shoddy logic/evidence in it at all - which is the more accurate comparison. The secondary coverage of this book/claim is nonexistent - the articles referenced thus far are merely reporting on the books release, not lending any credibility or extra “source quality” to it. There’s also a difference between concerns and “proof” - concerns with no proof/evidence aren’t due weight for an article at all, and there’s no claims/concerns with any reputable evidence right now. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Five deaths resulted => This resulted in five deaths

"Five deaths resulted", in the intro, isn't (as far as I know, as a native English speaker) correct, but I don't have the permissions to change it! --BobEret (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@BobEret: I changed it to "five deaths occurred during the riot" but if you have anything better to suggest, especially if more concise, please do so. I didn't want to use the ambiguous "this" because the position in the sentence would refer to the storming, and the five deaths weren't all due to the storming but the general rioting that included the storming. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Anachronist: - your version is factually inaccurate. The policeman died in hospital the next day, not during the riot. starship.paint (exalt) 08:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

You're right. I made another small change to make it more concise, as "during or as a result of" is sort of redundant. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Mention of the deaths was removed by @Onetwothreeip: in this edit, however I have restored it as there was no consensus to remove it. Vrrajkum (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Vrrajkum: We really do not need to say how many people died at a certain event on the lead of this article. It's far too much detail for a summary of what is supposed to be Donald Trump's entire life and presidency, and is also complicated to explain in this case. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: Trump bears a high degree of responsibility for the deaths and they will likely be a central feature of his upcoming second impeachment trial; difficulties of explaining them aside, they merit inclusion in the lede for at least these reasons. Other editors are welcome to weigh in. Vrrajkum (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter at all how much responsibility he has for it, or its involvement in the impeachment. This is simply something which does not matter nearly enough to be included in the lead of this article. And before anybody misrepresents what I am saying, this is purely about the number of deaths at the event, not the event itself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It is not suitable for the lead. We do not list the amount of deaths in the Iraq War in the lead of George W Bush's article. In this case, there is no strong connection to Trump. I think this should be reviewed after the outcome of the Senate trial.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't feel that the Iraq War is a valid analogy because war obviously implies that people will die. Deaths during an ostensibly "peaceful" protest, on the other hand, are more noteworthy. For the time being I have changed the exact number of "five" to read "several" instead, in line with the imprecise language "dozens of unsuccessful legal challenges" above it. Vrrajkum (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

What you think five deaths is more noteworthy than the thousands who died in the Iraq War? Are you serious??? People die in protests all the time. If there was a judicial finding that Trump was responsible for these deaths, then yes, that's worth noting in the lead. Otherwise, it's just a pretty pathetic attempt to bolster the case against Trump, which in all likelihood will fail in the Senate. Put down the megaphone, hang up the blowtorch, turn round the telescope, and realise this is just a speed bump in the Mad Max highway of American history. The splangled republic will survive! Live free and die young!--Jack Upland (talk) 09:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

North Korea

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

I support the trimming. I also don't think the last sentence of this sentence is necessary, as it doesn't tell us anything, and has no direct relationship with Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump met Kim, wanting denuclearisation. It didn’t happen. That’s the relevance of the last sentence. starship.paint (exalt) 08:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm undecided on the last sentence, which is why I left it in the article. It should probably say something linked to Trump though, rather than leaving it as an implication. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Japan Times Trump’s diplomatic endeavors did not result in an elimination of the North Korean nuclear arsenal — contrary to his initial assertions, Pyongyang has continued to develop its weapons program Source makes the connection. starship.paint (exalt) 09:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The source might make the connection, but we don't. Saying that the talks broke down is sufficient. Clearly if North Korea did scrap its nukes, we would say that.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

The cuts removed longstanding consensus text that conveys the substance of the two leaders' engagement, including Trump's pleasure at Kim's love letters. The cut was not NPOV. Also, these cuts are not "trims" when they change the meaning of the narratives. SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

However long the text has been in the article is not an argument for its retention. I also checked to see if there was a consensus on this, and found there was none. "Love letters" does not convey substance and the proposed text very adequately summarises the warm relationship between Trump and Kim. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Please review our Policies and Guidelines regarding consensus and longstanding content. Yes, it is consensus text and you'll need to convince us all that WEIGHT, sourcing, or other factors have changed. Trump used the "love letter" bit, which was discussed here on talk, I believe. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

You clearly haven't read the guidelines you are talking about. Just because something may have been discussed, does not mean there is consensus for it. And no, nobody needs to "convince us all" about anything, ever. There plainly isn't any consensus text about North Korea for this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the trimming improves the article. Trump uses hyperbolic language, which if quoted verbatim can seem confusing. The wording implies that there was a sexual or romantic aspect to the relationship, which per WP:REDFLAG would require authoritative sources. TFD (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't convey a sexual relationship. It conveys the context and understanding Trump brought to this dire threat, identified by his predecessor as the top foreign policy challenge facing Trump. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think Trump's own self-description of their correspondence implies a "sexual or romantic aspect." It does, however, importantly show that Trump sought to use "personal diplomacy" with Kim in one of his signature policy initiatives, which as it turned out was fruitless. Neutrality^talk 00:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

"Love" can imply a romantic interest, which is an issue particularly for readers who are not familiar with the article subject. Per WP:ASTONISH, The average reader should not be shocked, surprised, or confused by what they read. Do not use provocative language. Instead, offer information gently. Use consistent vocabulary in parts that are technical and difficult. To work out which parts of the sentence are going to be difficult for the reader, try to put yourself in the position of a reader hitherto uninformed on the subject. Trump's own words cannot be taken as accurately assessing anything. If we want to say he sought to use personal diplomacy, let's just say that instead of implying it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with those comments about the letters. I also think that the previous text put too much emphasis on the letters. The summits received much more media attention and were considered to be the main front in Trump's diplomacy.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The remaining text 27 letters in which the two men described a warm personal friendship covers it well enough (it still shows personal diplomacy... ultimately fruitless). "Love letters" is just another Trump hyperbole. starship.paint (exalt) 15:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

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

No you don't have support to change longstanding consensus text. Trump is a masterful communicator and he chose to say love letter to characterize the relationship. We follow verified RS. ASTONISH has nothing to do with censoring verified content. Don't misappropriate guidelines. SPECIFICO talk 10:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• You certainly do not have consensus to make this challenged edit. Neutrality^talk 17:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It's only one person who is opposing the change, or two including Neutrality. By any definition, consensus favours the trimmed version over the previous version. It's not unanimous support, but that's not required. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Trimmed version is sufficient, no need to wax lyrical on "love letters". A "personal diplomacy" characterization is more neutral, let's resist playing into Trump's love for hyperbole. — JFG ^talk 15:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  Personal diplomacy is Kissinger and Reagan. This is not described as such in RS. Let's describe a zebra. It's a white horse. Those stripes are just an insignificant detail. SPECIFICO talk 18:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

This is quite a baffling analogy, as zebras are most definitely not horses. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Bingo! Just as mainstream RS do not call Trump's Korean adventures diplomacy or foreign policy. His approach is described as reality TV or clowning and dereliction of duty in the face of a dangerous threat. SPECIFICO talk 20:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, you are confusing your own opinions with "mainstream RS". There are many sources which call Trump's activities diplomacy.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Ad hominems suggest you have no substantive rationale for expunging this key content. Are you familiar with RS coverage of this? With the statements of Mattis, Tillerson, Bolton, and countless other domain experts. For starters you can google Trump diplomacy and see what happens. SPECIFICO talk 20:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay we get it, you don't like Donald Trump. If you seriously think that is what the article should say, make a bold edit or propose it. Otherwise it's just more WP:POV WP:NOTHERE. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you really need to be reminded not to make personal remarks? Again? There is longstanding consensus text, so it falls on your shoulders or other body parts to justify removal. SPECIFICO talk 20:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with what I've said. The claims you are making, which you are not saying should be in the article, are not currently in the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support trim as an improvement over the previous. It could be improved further (the first thing that jumps out at me is that Time is a poor source for this, but there are others that could be used). I think I weakly support including the last sentence, at least for now. The point should be made, although I think a good objection is raised about the implied cause and effect. I think that's another area of future improvement. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support trim Using Trump's description "love letters" could be very confusing and misleading for those readers who don't know much about the two leaders' engagement. I also think characterizations like "personal diplomacy" or similar are much better here. The new version of the text after trimming is fine, it is shorter and clearer. Felix558 (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support trim with no major concerns with it. I also think that SPECIFICO, among others, needs to take a step back and remember that this article is too long, and is not a bulletin board of every potentially negative thing that can be possibly said about Trump - it is an encyclopedia article - not the place for people to vent about how bad they think he is. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

An alternative trimming

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

I applaud the effort and will review this. What did I trim that you think should be kept? Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Combining the first two sentences is certainly good. I tried to do that but was reverted.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Question

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

North Korea (Kim) is featured in the lede as one whole sentence, so obviously editors consider it important. starship.paint (exalt) 15:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but why does the trimming of this section attract so much attention?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Because the section is judged important, the trimming is less favoured. Anything else you want to suggest? starship.paint (exalt) 09:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it's the complete opposite. People are targetting the North Korean section to be minimised, again and again and again. Why???--Jack Upland (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: - I'm befuddled by your comment, as you yourself support trimming of the North Korean section. Perhaps people agree with your reasons. starship.paint (exalt) 02:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Time to implement

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

What are you talking about???--Jack Upland (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I've added this subsection heading to distinguish it from the "Question" subsection. I am referring to the edit I brought to the talk page in this overall section, which is now clearly endorsed by a consensus of the talk page participants. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Neutrality: has already implemented an acceptable compromise trim. I think this has been resolved. If you wish to insist on your own wording, you could launch an RfC, but I think this would be pointless. SPECIFICO talk 00:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. There is near unanimous consensus for 123's proposed trim. We do not need an RFC. I will implement the trim later if no one beats me to it. Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I see consensus also. starship.paint (exalt) 02:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I obviously disagree - the comments are clear that people like a trimmed version over what was previously in the article, but I see few or no people obviously expressing an opinion for 123's trimmed version over my trimmed version. Since my version was proposed after 123's version began to be discussed, a simple head-counting exercise is inapt. I am OK with an "A vs. B" RFC if others insist. Neutrality^talk 15:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I give up. You and Specifico are too difficult to work with. Your tag team ownership is too frustrating and your obstruction takes up too much of my time. Nobody can sincerely claim there isn't consensus in this thread for 123's trim and not yours. Meanwhile you've already implemented yours. How nice. Goodbye. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Not a single editor objected to my version, which accommodated everyone's desire for trimming while avoiding the controversial parts of the 123's edit. Had a single person objected, I would have happily reverted back to the status quo (pre-trimmed) version. I have consistently made consensus-based efforts to update, improve, and condense this article. It's truly unfortunate that you've chosen to focus on editors rather than content. Neutrality^talk 17:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, then I object to your version. In reality, your proposal was simply ignored by the majority of people. There is clearly more support for the trimming that I did than what you did, so obviously what I did should be what is implemented, given that the vast majority of talk page participants here agreed with mine. It would be proper to start a discussion about your proposal after mine is implemented. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

More people objected to your proposal than to my proposal. (In fact, my proposal has been in the article for five days without any objection until yours just now.) In addition, while everyone agreed on trimming, there was certainly no consensus that your trimming was better than my trimming. And there was no consensus to exclude the key sentence: "North Korea continued to build up its arsenal of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles." Your version also randomly re-inserted a mention of Trump imposing additional sanctions against North Korea in 2017, while deleting references to Trump rescinding some sanctions against North Korea in 2019. Was this intentional? This disorganized process is not good. I am happy to work with you on a formal RFC with an "A vs. B" text that highlights the specific differences and narrows the range of text under dispute. Neutrality^talk 23:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The only reason that nobody objected to your proposal is because nobody saw it. Likewise, nobody expressed support of your proposal either. This is compared with what I proposed, which many people have commented on, and the vast majority have expressed support explicitly for my proposal, and not only for the notion of trimming the subsection. Consensus does not require unanimity. Of course my edits were intentional. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Let's review the bidding here:

1. You started an informal discussion, and most others—including me—supported trimming over the previous version.
2. During/after the discussion, given that there was a rough consensus that trimming was a good idea, I implemented a trimmed version. That was uncontroversial; nobody challenged it either by reversion or at the talk page. Everyone agrees that this is an improvement over the status quo ante.
3. The focus of the conversation was about trimming, and the trimming was done. Nobody ever expressed support for the notion that your version could replace all intervening edits.
4. The discussion above was not focused on the crucial "bottom line" last sentence ("North Korea continued to build up its arsenal of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles"). This sentence has been discussed before, and efforts to remove it were unsuccessful. And in the discussion above, by my rough count, of the three editors in the above discussion who mentioned this point, there was 2–1 in favor of retaining it. If you count me and you, it's 3–2 in favor of retention.
5. Despite the above, you imposed your version (which numerous editors have, at least in part, objected to) over the stable version that had been trimmed five days ago (which I don't think any editor, except for you, has objected to).
6. As part of your edit, you also randomly re-inserted a mention of Trump imposing additional sanctions against North Korea in 2017, while deleting references to Trump rescinding some sanctions against North Korea in 2019. This was not discussed at all above. You have not yet articulated any rationale for this.
7. I've offered to collaborate with you on a organized RfC with a clear A vs. B choice, but you've not accepted that offer.

Neutrality^talk 05:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• So you implemented the version you informally proposed — then you concurrently proceeded to make other, new edits that you did not earlier propose (or that were previously rejected), and that were promptly reverted (by SPECIFICO)? That rather creates, rather than resolves, confusion. Your comment also still doesn't explain your change to the sanctions language.

I propose to put the issue to a clear, formal RFC: with Option A being the current, trimmed status quo version (without the "love letters" quote, since that passage seems to raise concerns) and Option B being whatever specific text you would like to propose. A clear outcome will result (as opposed to a muddle in which different proposals and different edits were made at different times to different parts of the text), and we can all move on from the North Korea section. Neutrality^talk 19:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I see no reason to exclude the love letters. The only alternative, which would require a lot of work but may eventually be done, is to substitute more general tertiary-sourced material that captures the aspects of Trump's approach of which the "love letters" is an example and which conveys the substance of his approach. There's a reason the love letters remark has been so widely reported and discussed in secodnary and tertiary sources, and that establishes its DUE significance for this article. I'll just keep repeating every time it comes up, we should not force the narrative of Donald Trump into a cognitive template applicable to other presidents who were focused on policy and civic process. Trump's is not Jimmy Carter, Bush2, or other presidents whose policies failed. It's a different phenomonon and we need to be purely descriptive.

For additional love letter references, see Woodward/VOA, USA Today "As Kim wooed Trump with ‘love letters,’ he kept building his nuclear capability, intelligence shows" in WaPo video[18] Trump Administration NK movie trailer. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, what I proposed at the very start of this section (which is what has overwhelming consensus) is what needs to be implemented now. I have since made other edits to the article, and if you want to revert those, that's fine. I'm not referring to all the edits I have made, only the single edit that this entire discussion was started with. Your and Specifico's disagreement is noted, but doesn't get to overturn or delay the consensus reached here. I have no issue with you wanting to start an RfC for your own proposal, after the consensus is implemented. No, there is no need to create an RfC comparing the new consensus version with yours before the former is implemented into the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: There is near unanimous consensus for 123's proposed trim. We do not need an RFC. I will implement the trim later if no one beats me to it. I would be grateful if you could do so. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

No sorry I'm done spending any more of my time on this page. I applaud your efforts to improve it but for me, I'm just not volunteering any more time if it means having to fight with those two about every damn edit. They'd probably file at AE and accuse me of tag teaming anyway. Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Briefly mentioning "Patriot Party" in the Post-presidency section

Hello! Now that the "Patriot Party" article has been redirected here per the recent dicussion, the Post-presidency section should probably have, like, a single sentence mentioning the fact that Trump is considering starting and might possibly start a separate political party. Even though the party hasn't been officially proposed yet, Trump's considering of it has been reported on in agreed-to-be-reliable-sources, and has significant ramifications. While there doesn't need to be paragraphs about it, there should probably be ONE sentence about it. How about:

"Following alleged criticism from top Republicans, Trump discussed with his aides the possibility of starting a new political party called the 'Patriot Party'."

Or something brief like that. Any suggestions? Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Weak support I suppose there's nothing wrong with adding it. My only problem is that this is just speculation. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

There's simply not enough to it, especially for this article which is far too large currently. It's also far too recent, and probably not something that anyone will think is important in ten years. Do we have any articles about Donald Trump about his political positions? Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

You raise a good point, it probably shouldn't be added. I don't feel crossing my old response out, so just note I'm opposed to this motion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose even one sentence because we don't know yet if it is significant that Trump considered a third party. Other, newer, news reports said he's no longer considering it (links are in previous discussions of this). In any case, we should not include what someone thought about doing, based on news media reports that were later contradicted by other news media reports. This is what WP:NOTNEWS is all about... we shouldn't report the day-to-day play-by-play of Trump's life. A biography is not a diary. Suppose we had three not-news RSes, like three biography books about Trump, pure secondary sources, and all three mentioned Trump considered but rejected forming a new party, then I'd support including it. History books, for example, will write that a general or other national leader considered some course of action but ultimately rejected it; this sort of thing we should include. But it's just too soon to know whether this third party thing is significant enough for inclusion; we have to wait for the history books to be written; and that's the point of NOTNEWS. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose for reasons stated.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

References

We should have one sentence talking about how he did consider and then decide to drop it because that’s what most reliable sources are basically saying now SRD625 (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Early actions/Conflict of interest

There is a partial overlap between the last paragraph of "Early actions" and the first paragraph of "Conflict of interests". I tried to resolve this, but my edit was reverted. As it stands, the text is quite repetitive. I think there is potential to cut down the word count here without any loss of content.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Try cutting the weaker second mention. SPECIFICO talk 00:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The issue relates to "Conflict of interest" and so belongs under that heading, as far as I can see. There is no reason to discuss the management of Trump's businesses during the Presidency twice.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

You made dozens of edits lately. It would help if you mentioned which edit and revert you are talking about. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not about a particular edit; it is about an overlap between two paragraph which is clearly explained.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Undue weight

"In August 2019 it was reported that a man who allegedly assaulted a minor for perceived disrespect toward the national anthem had cited Trump's rhetoric in his own defense." This sentence is undue weight, since this one incident is trivial in nature. Violates WP:NPOV and falls under WP:RECENTISM.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a summary source that also discusses the many other accused criminals who have cited Trump? That would address the concern. SPECIFICO talk 03:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Just check the next sentence. It talks about criminal cases supposedly from Trump inciting violence on a broader scale. This one case is trivial, and should be removed, especially since this is already an article that's too long. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree, this is a "factoid" and should be removed. Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Obvious remove. Even if there wasn't already anything in the article about Trump inciting violence generally, silly things like this need to be removed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It's a minor incident with a trivial connection to Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree on removal - it was probably notable at the time, and seemed to be a rare occurrence, but it's been overshadowed by more serious events since then. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

You made dozens of edits lately. It would help if you mentioned which edit and revert you are talking about. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is in reference to the following sentence,"In August 2019 it was reported that a man who allegedly assaulted a minor for perceived disrespect toward the national anthem had cited Trump's rhetoric in his own defense." Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, why was that stated in the first post. No wonder Americans have turned to insurrection!--Jack Upland (talk) 09:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Public profile

Does this really need to exist? The content could be folded into other relevant sections, resulting in a significant size reduction. Most of it is in fact about the Presidency, and it is misleading to mix in stuff that isn't related to the Presidency. And some content definitely should be elsewhere, such as the Access Hollywood tape, which was an event in the 2016 campaign. MOS:BLPCHRONO says biographies should be presented in chronological order, so this is a major violation. A lot of the material here seems designed to prove a point and takes a sledgehammer approach. There is a lot of detail here which is really unnecessary and repeats information better presented elsewhere.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Trump's public profile didn't begin or end with his presidency/candidacy. Only the Approval ratings subsection deals exclusively with the presidency. The others deal with events before and during the presidency, with later events likely to follow. The Access Hollywood tape, for example, was aired during the campaign but it's about Trump the person, not Trump the candidate or Trump the president. And the 26 women who accused Trump of sexual misconduct came forward during his presidency, but the alleged incidents didn't occur during the presidency. MOS:BLPCHRONO also says except where there is good reason to do otherwise. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing?--Jack Upland (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty clear that I was disagreeing but it seems that I was wrong. Can you give me an example of content you propose to fold into which section? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Very fine people on both sides

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: This edit of yours is not reliably sourced. One source is an uncommented transcript of the Trump press conference (good luck to anyone trying to parse that), the other one is an opinion by a right-wing opinion writer who thinks his pick of Trump quotes proves something different. The sentence about "very fine people on both sides" isn’t WP speaking, it’s citing RS. I could add more RS but that would be overciting. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, the edit was reliably sourced. One source was from USA Today and the other is Politifact, which are credible under WP:RSP. [19], the Politifact source yes does have the transcript, but that's not all it says, you missed a crucial part at the end when they rated the "very fine people on both sides" comment as "Full context is needed", which is the same as saying the comment is out of context. As for the USA Today source, yes the writer is right-wing, but WP:NPOV says that biased sources aren't inherently unreliable. Also, there are a crap ton of sources on this article that are written by liberals, so if we followed this no biased writers rule, we probably wouldn't have much of an article. Here's another source, [20], while not under WP:RSP, it does appear credible and is affiliated with the Annenberg Public Policy Center, that also says the comments were out of context. Overall, the comments have been taken out of context for political reasons, and for Wikipedia to pander to this lie is a text book example of NPOV being violated. I'm really not sure why this is a controversial thing. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: - (1) opinion articles are used for opinions, not for facts. No matter if that source is green on WP:RSP - USA Today opinion, New York Times opinion, Wall Street Journal opinion - all only for opinions. If you can't adhere to that, you should not be editing in this area. (2) We should not use the transcript, but we can use the Factcheck.org source. starship.paint (exalt) 10:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: That's a non sequitur. Farley is factchecking a Biden comment, he doesn't weigh in on Trump's widely critized "very fine people on both sides" remark. Trump has said his “very fine people” comment referred not to white supremacists and neo-Nazis but to “people that went because they felt very strongly about the monument to Robert E. Lee — a great general, whether you like it or not.” Some have argued that explanation doesn’t hold up, because Trump referred in that statement to a protest “the night before” when — it was widely reported — white nationalists burned tiki torches and chanted anti-Semitic and white nationalist slogans. We’ll leave it to readers to make up their minds on Trump’s remarks, but Biden’s comment that Trump has “yet once to condemn white supremacy” is not accurate. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think that "Full context is needed" is a PolitiFact comment, it’s an ad for the Share the Facts widget (it’s now the FactStream app, I think), featuring a Trump quote from April 2019. Robbins's "more complete quote" is selectively edited, leaving out parts that didn’t fit into Robbins’s narrative. The Washington Post’s The Fix analyzed that very part of the press conference, including the parts Robbins left out and what Trump said next, i.e., the full context. The full context is that Trump neglected to mention that it was a march organized by neo-Nazis, white supremacists and white nationalists, many of them armed to the gills, carrying Nazi paraphernalia and Confederate flags, chanting "Jews will not replace us" and "white lives matter." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of what he was referring to in his "very fine" comment, he still did condemn neo-Nazis and white nationalists. That is part of his racial views. That very quote has been reported by FactCheck above as mentioned by Iamreallygoodatcheckers, WaPo above as mentioned by Space4Time3Continuum2x, AP, CNN, USA Today, SBS. BBC. Snopes, Time, ABC News and NPR. starship.paint (exalt) 12:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• WaPo as Space4Time3Continuum2x provided: It’s easy to isolate comments meant to insulate oneself — including last week ... but it’s also very possible to do so while sending plenty of other signals that point in a very different direction. I agree with this sentiment, so we should be reporting both parts of his speech - the part where he sent unsavory signals, and the part where he condemned neo-Nazis. starship.paint (exalt) 13:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  No. Because RS coverage and later reporting of public understanding of his remarks tell us the message was condoning white supremacy and posing a false equivalence with peaceful protesters. SPECIFICO talk 14:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  Starship, you did a little selective editing there yourself. It’s easy to isolate comments meant to insulate oneself — including last week ... but it’s also very possible to do so while sending plenty of other signals that point in a very different direction. And Trump’s history on this is anything but a matter of selective editing. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• We should cover it as reliable sources have, which generally present it the way SPECIFICO described. The aspect or interpretation being presented here just doesn't receive the sort of focus these edits try to give it and plainly isn't what is notable about the quote; the moral equivalence is what makes the quote noteworthy. This is especially true given that that quote alone received WP:SUSTAINED coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Factcheck a credible source has labeled the media's claims misleading. It's fine to mention that the media has said that the comments created an equivalence with white nationalist. That would be half way achieving NPOV. It's important that we also mention that a reliable fact checker said the comments are out of context, if we don't its not a NPOV. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

trump security

It needs to be in the article that as all past presidents he will have security on him for the rest of his life..the cost and the details of protecting him are relevant 00:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)107.217.84.95 (talk)

The cost of secret service is not relevant to this article, all presidents get protection past presidency, it's simply not notable for an already lengthy article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Why are you saying he's a past president?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It is relevant..I was referring more to the specifics of protecting him whether he is going to stay in Florida or go back to New York..trump`s post presidency will be the most controversial ever and the security issues could easily become a problem. 107.217.84.95 (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Not relevant. This is nothing special for Trump, it is routine for all past presidents. The only reason to mention it, and how much it was costing, would be to try to make him look bad. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree..other former presidents go home to there estates and we don`t hear much from them after that..trump is different..no one can predict the future but more than likely he will be living the rest of his life in a fish bowl..his situation is different . 107.217.84.95 (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

url-access=limited

@Psypherium: According to your edit summary, you added "url-access=limited" to about 200 New York Times links. When adding one of them (that I know about), you inserted it between "htm" and "l" of the link, resulting in a dead link which was tagged here. I've since fixed the link. Why did you add the value, and why the NYT? Including your two following edits, you added more than 3,300 bytes to the article that do not serve any useful purpose. Please remove them. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I thank you for making the fix. I added the value because it adds a notification informing the reader about NYT links: "Free access subject to limited trial, subscription normally required." I do believe that this serves a useful purpose. Although, I also believe that this article needs some code golf, which is usually what I do to wiki articles, this case was an exception. My suggestion is that some of the hidden text could be moved to the page notices? This would save a lot of page size. I understand that this could cause some problems though. It is difficult to keep a page with such a contentious topic at a reasonable byte size. I hope that your day will be good :) Psypherium^{talk page} 14:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I don't think "aggressively optimizing for program size" is quite the right fit for Wikipedia. Which hidden text are you referring to? As for free access, I don't know where you got that information. If you don't have a subscription to the NYT, you don't have access to the non-digitized archives, some of the recipes, and the crossword requires a separate subscription, but you do have access to all of the online articles. The access is less comfortable because you have to keep clearing cache, cookies, and site data regularly—and you get to see all those lovely ads—but that's no different from other newspapers and magazines (they have to make money somehow), so most WP readers are aware of that practice. I've started to remove the notifications but that's going to take some time, so your help would be appreciated. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree those should be removed. They are not policy-based and serve no pupose. SPECIFICO talk 14:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the addition of the parameter. It's a standard citation template parameter, I'm kind of surprised anyone would object to it. The parameter serves a useful purpose: it tells readers that a link is behind a paywall. It also populates the metadata. That's the point of the parameter. That's why it's used all over Wikipedia. And it causes no harm to add (how many k doesn't matter and 3.3k is negligible.) Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The links aren't behind a paywall. If you want to add the argument to the Wall Street Journal links - no objection. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Huh? Are you saying |url-access=limited is not the correct setting for NYT articles? Per the tooltip and template doc, "limited" means "free access subject to limited trial, subscription normally required", which seems to accurately describe NYT. I believe WSJ would be |url-access=subscription, since WSJ doesn't offer a free trial, and yes, it would be an improvement if someone were to add that parameter to WSJ cites (and all other cites as applicable). Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Standard? Not really. We would have to apply it to tens of millions of citations to non-public-domain books, to academic journal articles, and to many of our other best sources. In fact to just about all our references, except for video game reviews on youtube and the like. Then we'd have to monitor websites like the Wall St. Journal that formerly allowed quite a bit of free access but now are impenetrable without a subscription or trip to the local library or newsstand. SPECIFICO talk 20:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

If you have a problem with |url-access=, Template:Citation is that-a-way... I don't know how long we've had that parameter, but longer than I've been here. You're basically objecting to someone correctly filling out a citation template. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I take it you were unable to address the substance of my reply. At any rate, it would be easier to tag the tiny minority of free references as free. SPECIFICO talk 01:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no way to tag a reference as free. Free is the default. The settings are registration, limited, and subscription. This is explained in the template doc I linked to. Specifico are you seriously saying you're not familiar with this citation template parameter? You've been here forever this can't be your first encounter with url-access. Levivich ^harass/_hound 01:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't familiar with this either. I wouldn't expect an editor, no matter their experience, to know about this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I don’t remember ever having come across this parameter in almost 5 years of editing on WP. According to the template documentation, all parameters are optional. I’ve looked at other articles and found a few instances of url-access=registration for book content and paywalled newspapers like the Financial Times. The parameter hasn't been used in this article, and I see no reason to start using it now. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

You mean you reverted someone adding this parameter and you don't even know what the parameter is? What a waste of your colleague's time. Next time if you're unfamiliar with a template parameter, read the documentation first and educate yourself, before reverting. It doesn't matter if you see a reason for using it or not. Citation template parameters aren't exactly a local consensus thing. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the lecture, but that's not what happened. Saying that I hadn't come across url-access=limited before isn't the same as saying that I didn't know what it was when I saw it—I did know, it's self-explanatory. One more time: the parameters are optional, and on this page we have gotten along just fine without that one (and a few others that Mandruss has been removing diligently). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

That was not responsive, Levivich. If it has a default that applies in a small minority of its uses, the default should be changed to the predominant value, which is not free. Most WP reference works are not free. SPECIFICO talk 14:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying "that was not responsive"? I don't understand what you mean or what kind of response you're looking for. If you want to change the default setting of a template parameter, take it up at the template talk page. Until then stop wasting my time. Read the documentation before objecting to something you don't understand or know about. You're complaining on an article talk page about which way the citation templates are coded. A waste of our time here. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Remove or reimagine the "Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op" subsection

Firstly, this subsection is under "Domestic policy", and it's not a policy. Secondly, having an entire subsection dedicated to this one minor thing is undue weight. My thoughts are to remove it fully, or to turn it into a subsection that talks about his response/policy to the summer riots and protests. You know like how he dispatched federal police. We could briefly mention the Lafayette square photo-op there, with a sentence or 2 which would then be due weight. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose This episode was an important step in Trump's march toward overt authoritarianism. It had major repercussions for Trump and his senior leadership. Historians for decades to come will be coming to this article for curated references to reliable sources that they can study, and anyone making a serious effort to understand the impact of Trump will benefit greatly from reading this content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support clearly it doesn't belong in that subheading and it seems like it was added via WP:RECENTISM. In the grand scheme of things, no one will remember Trump for this. I could maybe see the argument for a sentence inclusion in a response to the George Floyd protests. I'd also support full removal Anon0098 (talk) 07:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. This subsection should just be removed. The incident has its own article, so it's adequately covered by the encyclopedia. At the time, sundry editors were bleating that this was the equivalent of Kristallnacht. Trump was projected to become a dictator and start executing Jews. This prophecy has thus far proved false. If the Trump dictatorship does emerge, I agree that this crucial event should dominate the article in this universe and beyond. But until that time, it is just the sordid detritus of the juvenile fantasies of a few bored adolescents. This is an overlarge article, and this subsection belongs in the rubbish bin.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

  WTH? sundry editors were bleating that this was the equivalent of Kristallnacht. Trump was projected to become a dictator and start executing Jews. ... it is just the sordid detritus of the juvenile fantasies of a few bored adolescents. Also here: The article is biased and basically being stymied by cyborg SAPs who are obsessed with Russia. I'll bleat with Shaun the Sheep anytime, and you need to read up on Kristallnacht. Voicing your opinion—fair enough, I do that a lot—but you've crossed a few lines here. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  • You are just confirming that your attitudes (which I understand) are adolescent. My analysis is amply borne out by your comments and the comments of your teenage comrades. In point of fact, Trump is more like Huey Long than Adolf Hitler - in my very, very, very humble opinion. But what do I know? I don't live in the US of A, I don't own a gun, and I'm not a porn star. However, the fact is that many editors have expressed the opinion that this incident was somehow the catalyst, the harbinger, or whatever way you want to word it, of a Trump dictatorship. This is arguably completely ludicrous and adolescent, and - furthermore - it is not borne out by subsequent developments. You and your whimsical colleagues seem to think that one bizarre incident in the Trump reign warrants a place in this article. They are not worthy to work on an encyclopedia, and secondly they are dimwits. I apologise if my comments cause any offense to sentient beings. I understand the tin foil hat brigade has various factions and faddiies, and I am sure deep in the morass of self-deception and hypocrisy there is a weed that blooms evergreen, and that weed is the idea that Trump is a florid exception to the grand arc of American politics, rather than the toxic new normal. In any case, good luck with your vapid theorising and I hope your children survive the cataclysm. Keep on truckin'.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This was a watershed moment in Trump's pursuit of open totalitarian violence against the US. It was iconic in that he mustered senior officials and law enforcement to participate and that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Milley himself, and others later, renounced their actions. Its significance has only increased with subsequent events. SPECIFICO talk 13:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support (with a caveat), it should not be wholly removed but reduced to one sentence and not in its own section. If it is to just be removed Oppose.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I took care of the "Domestic policy" issue by following the example of George W.Bush's page and moving the two non-policy subsections into the new "Other issues" section. The photo-op text has already been reduced to a bare minimum. Compare that to the Pardons and Commutations section, for example, which is about four times the size and lists around 20 people and the crimes they were convicted of. This "minor thing" led to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff apologizing for accompanying Trump on the walk and thereby "creat[ing] the perception of the military involved in domestic politics." According to numerous sources, it also led or contributed to the different federal preparations for and response to the January 6 demonstrations which ended with the sacking of the Capitol and the killing of a police officer. WaPo, 1/14/21, NYT, 1/6/21, Slate, 1/20/21, CNN, 1/7/21, US News, 1/12/21, ABC, 1/8/221, The Guardian, 1/6/21, AP, 1/14/21, Vanity Fair, 1/7/21, WaPo, 1/11/21. Quote from last WaPo source: The blowback the military received in June over the response to protests overshadowed officials' approach to last week’s protests, prompting them to place limits on the D.C. Guard for a highly tailored mission. While then-Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper pushed back behind the scenes against Trump's desire to call in active-duty troops, Esper came under widespread criticism for describing U.S. cities as a “battlespace” in a White House call with governors. Milley issued an unusual public apology for appearing alongside the president after personnel forcibly cleared protesters from Lafayette Square outside the White House. The repercussions of those events increased Pentagon leaders' skepticism of Trump, who since his first day in office has bucked norms for presidential interactions with the military. "The lesson they took away was: 'We got caught in the middle of a political firestorm and how do we keep ourselves out of that? The best thing to do is be on the low down, keep a low profile, let's not get in the mix and let the civilians handle it,'" said Risa Brooks, a professor of political science at Marquette University who studies the U.S. military. … The Pentagon’s impulse to shy away from missions injecting the military into a charged partisan debate backfired in the case of the Capitol riot, Brooks said, because the absence of the military became a political statement in itself for many Americans. "All they see is: where is the Guard? The Guard was out there with the Park forces out in Lafayette Square ready to come after us, and we weren’t out trying to breach the Capitol . . . that's what they see," Brooks said. "And one understands why they see it that way." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: this is definitely not a minor thing and people are still talking about it SRD625 (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose This incident was, and is, so important that it has its own article: Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church. Of course it needs to be included here. It is only two short paragraphs, there is no reason to remove that brief summary. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose removal. This is historically significant and biographically significant (and even more so in light of subsequent events); the space devoted to it is appropriate weight. If you think it could be "reimaginated" or better integrated, please propose a version (ideally on the talk page first). Neutrality^talk 21:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

  Good point we could reimagerate it to better contextualize Trump's progression from 2016-7 in which he casually but vacuously encouraged violence, e.g. at rallies, through the pivotal Photo Op in which he exercised his official authority, to his actions post-election and on Jan 6 that fundamentally altered the mainstream view of him and his presidency. There have been good tertiary discussions of this, although the narrative will no doubt become clearer in a year or two as books are written and official investigations progress. SPECIFICO talk 21:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support, highly reduce if not remove. We don't make sections for what is considered "important steps" or things described by commentators at the time as important. Nobody is really talking about this event anymore. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

RE Nobody is really talking about this event anymore. The Hill, 1 week ago; USA Today, 1 month ago; Bloomberg, 1 month ago; Washington Post, 1 month ago; New York Times, 1 month ago. This event has not been forgotten. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Further, that is quite a meaningless standard, unless we envision robots one day taking over our editing efforts. "Nobody is really talking about" Marla Maples, Trump Airlines, or for that matter most of this article's content, on a day-to-day basis. SPECIFICO talk 00:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

It's also not the main reason I give for removal. It's one example of something that Trump did, like many other things he did. Trump Airlines is also irrelevant, at least for this article, whereas Marla Maples was one of only three people he has been married to. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support total removal and perhaps replace with one sentence in Presidency article. So what...the President visited a church for 10 minutes after the city imposed curfew was in effect at 7pm. Yes, the scumbag that set fire to the church nursery and other scumbags that spray painted graffiti on the building posed a security threat. As did the scumbags that compelled the Secret Service to escort trump to the bunker...there was a definite security risk so they cleared that out so he could go visit the church.--MONGO (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support this has been over-blown and over-included on this page for quite some time. The Trump orb was another notable photo-op and I don't think that's here at all. The relevant thing is the reaction to the George Floyd protests; neither Floyd nor the other protests are mentioned. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cullen328, MelanieN, and Neutrality. starship.paint (exalt) 02:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Reduce but don't remove - significant enough to be mentioned but not its own section, and two paragraphs is too much. One sentence to one paragraph seems WP:DUE to me. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• I agree that it shouldn't be removed, per Cullen, Space4Time etc. But I'd prefer it be juxtaposed with the imagery of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol (current title of that event), as many reliable sources have juxtaposed T****'s position and actions, as well as the presence of law enforcement in both events. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  That's a constructive suggestion. Do you have some sources or sourced article text cou could propose? SPECIFICO talk 22:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  For starters, here's a Washington Post article, "Lafayette Square, Capitol rallies met starkly different policing response by Rachel Chason and Samantha Schmidt, regarding law enforcement. I've read plenty in this direction (also regarding the ex-president's actions). Near bedtime, but I'll look for more. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Health subsection in Presidency

Can someone explain to me why Trump’s “health” subsection is located under his Presidency in the article? Should it not be under his “Personal life”? — Politicsfan4 (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I don't know how or when it got put there. It used to be under the "personal" section, right under "Wealth". I'll move it back. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

"health" subsection should definitely be under personal life. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I put it under "Presidency" because it concerns his presidency. Please don't violate Wikipedia polcies because it suits your personal whims. This has already been discused.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

And I put it back under Personal, where it logically belongs, as per everyone else here. If you know of some WP policy that overrules putting it under Personal, please point to it. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Citation and note in lead

I removed a citation and note in the lead here for being unnecessary, but was reverted. The removal should be restored. Further information should be contained in the body of the article, not the lead. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. There definitely shouldn't be a citation in the lead of such a high-profile article as this. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 21:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

This was carefully considered before it was placed in the article. It certainly does not have to be in the lead, but removing it from the article rather than moving it was not a good move. SPECIFICO talk 00:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

We have enough sources already. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

It was not only a reference that you deleted. Unresponsive tslk page replies, such as yours here, do not advance your view. SPECIFICO talk 15:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, we have enough sources and prose in the body of the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Overturn consensus #40 on exercise.

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

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

• Oppose removal. Support rephrase: version A (He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is akin to a battery, with a limited amount of energy which is depleted by exercise.) starship.paint (exalt)
  I oppose removal as I disagree that this has no encyclopaedic value. It helps us understand Trump the man better. It also explains his obesity. We used to have more on his lifestyle. That was removed by Onetwothreeip. Trump abstains from alcohol. He says he has never smoked tobacco or cannabis. He likes fast food. He has said he prefers three to four hours of sleep per night. Rephrase the second quote because it isn't Trump's exact words. starship.paint (exalt) 14:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

This is simply not true. Obesity is not caused by lack of exercise. If we have something properly sourced to explain the causes of his obesity, we may add that in the article. This is what I mean by potentially starting over rather than holding onto this wording. Your reasoning indicates that readers are making inferences that are not made by us, and we need to avoid that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Obesity is not caused by lack of exercise. - Excuse me?! The World Health Organization, the American CDC, the British National Health Service, and the Harvard School of Public Health would disagree. Trump's White House doctor said: "I think a reasonable goal over the next year or so would be [for Trump] to lose 10 to 15 pounds," Jackson said. "We talked about diet and exercise a lot. He is more enthusiastic about the diet part than the exercise part but we're going to do both." Clearly exercise is a factor affecting weight, as is diet, that's from Trump's own doctor. We are not stating that exercise is the only factor, but certainly it is something to keep in mind. starship.paint (exalt) 03:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

If you actually read those sources, you'll see it's more about an active lifestyle or occupation than exercise. Regardless, we would need sources stating his obesity is caused by lack of exercise, and not synthesising it from his weight alone. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

(1) You're talking as if there is no link between obesity and exercise, but there is (see Dr. Jackson above), and NHS confirms it. Harvard says that exercise is a subset of physical activity, which is linked to obesity. WHO measured physical activity via exercise programmes. CDC lists various forms of exercise as vigorous physical activities. (2) You are making this wholly about his weight, but this is also about his lifestyle. It didn't help that you deleted everything else about his lifestyle. starship.paint (exalt) 09:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I think this provides good insight into his health beliefs and practices, and does so in his own words. It should be kept. I hadn't noticed that the material Starship quotes above had been removed and I think it should be restored. The widely-reported fact that he does not drink or smoke is an important health factor and should be included (although I could do without the "fast food" dig). I'm going to suggest restoring it, in a separate section after I dig up the necessary references. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Interesting side note: turns out Biden is also a lifelong teetotaler.[21] Maybe the one thing they have in common. Who knew? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

What insight into his health does it provide? It does not, it describes him doing one activity. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• I do think we should include that he is a teetotaler, his sleeping habits, and his eccentric views on exercise. (Sleeping habits of Trump have been the subject of academic interest). I agree with cutting the stuff about fast food, cannabis, and tobacco. Neutrality^talk 17:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support removal of He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise. and oppose removal of He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. I see nothing wrong with mentioning his exercise habits, that's part of his health. However, the sentence about the body being a battery has no value. Firstly, it doesn't say anything about Trump's health, which is what this is about. Secondly, this comment was almost certainly a joke. I highly doubt Trump actually believes that. The only reason it's there now is to make Trump look stupid, which violates NPOV. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  Comment Please review the talk page origins of Consensus 40. I do not recall any source or WP editor arguing that Trump's battery theory of exercise was a joke. Do you have any basis for your statement? SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  Ok so when I googled this I expected to see some candid video of Trump on CNN saying "exercise is a waste of energy...blah blah", but I was wrong. Trump has never said such a statement before, this is just a hearsay comment that one of his old friends claimed he said. This sentence mislead me, and the thousands of readers of this article, that Trump said that, when this quote has never been confirmed. Wikipedia is not a place for speculation to be said as fact. He even tried to argue that he does exercise by walking around. While it's true that Trump is no triathlete, he really hasn't said much against exercising. The only negative thing he has said about exercising is he doesn't like his older friends working out to profusely because their knees could go out. This sentence is just pure unsubstantiated bullshit, that shouldn't be mentioned. Here are the articles: [22] [23] Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  This is not like baseball where you get 3 swings. First, you acknowledged his belief but said it was him joking. Then you say he never said it. But now, I'll refer you to the cited reference, which is RS. So what is the problem? SPECIFICO talk 02:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  He even tried to argue that he does exercise by walking around. - now that’s absolute bullshit from Trump. He also argued that he exercised by giving an hour long speech. Reliable sources have reported his battery theory, and that’s what we go with. It’s not speculation. We’re not obliged to stop him from making himself look idiotic. WP:NPOV doesn’t mean that. starship.paint (exalt) 02:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Starship.paint You believe Trump saying he walks for exercise is bullshit, thats fine, I believe this unsubstantiated quote that right now only serves to demean Trump is bullshit. Reliable sources haven't proved that Trump has said this. Therefore, it's pure speculation. SPECIFICO I still believe if Trump ever said this that it was likely a joke, but that's beyond the point because this very well may have never been said. As I just told Starship.paint, reliable sources haven't confirmed this quote. My problem is Wikipedia is including pure speculation, whether by reliable sources or not, as fact. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: - you have a point, that quote isn't Trump's words, that's WaPo's words. This would be solved by rephrasing the comment. We should not be giving the impression that this is a quote from Trump. starship.paint (exalt) 09:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: You can't really rephrase it because it's such a specific phrase. It's just not appropriate to be on this page. We have no reason to believe that Trump actually believes that. Even the sources haven't proved he say it. This theory remains unsubstantiated. If this is going to be included at any level, it should mention that this was never said by Trump, and is a fringe theory that The Washington Post made up in their heads. Remember sources are GENERALLY reliable under WP:RSP, I don't think we emphasize generally enough. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support: this is an interesting bit of trivia, but it is trivia nonetheless. There is no way of knowing (from the text in the article) if this was an off-the-cuff comment Trump made or a philosophy he has had from birth. Editors should adhere to Wikipedia policies or retreat to Facebook. Biography articles here are supposed to be in chronological order, not some online noticeboard compiled by woold-be Woodwards. This is a man's life we are talking about. Who is this man? How can you have a short section about his health which references information about his health when he's in his 70s? Is this the sum total of the man — that he was overweight when he was 70 or that he took up golf when he was 56? Get a grip, people!--Jack Upland (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support. The article is too long as it is, and this piece of trivia is unimportant. I can understand how his exercise routine might be an important subject during his presidency, but now that he is just a private citizen it is of no import. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support- Never should have been included. Trump was probably making a joke when he said this, but the fact that certain media organizations did investigative pieces on this is something that I find hilarious.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  Any RS to substantiate probably making a joke? Otherwise you’re going against RS with your own speculation. starship.paint (exalt) 03:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Trump's health habits

I just learned that the information that Trump does not drink or smoke was removed from the article's "Health" section at some point. I think that is important health information - also his sleep habits - and I propose to restore it, as follows:

Trump abstains from alcohol. He says he has never smoked tobacco or used drugs. He has said, and his doctor confirms, that he sleeps about four or five hours a night.

Sources

Is this OK with people? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Neutrality: Oops, I didn't see that you had already replied above. What would you say to this propose wording? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Pretty good, but I would go even shorter and would add the Economic Letters journal cite:

Trump is a teetotaler. He sleeps about four or five hours a night.

Sources

Neutrality^talk 17:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements. But I would really prefer to include the information that he doesn't smoke; that is probably the single most important health habit there is. And it's only a few words; surely we can grant him that much of a positive, in an article where we are constantly accused of including only negative information. Say, "Trump is a teetotaler and he does not smoke," same references. (I forgot to say: my intention is to add this at the beginning of the section, making it a lead-in to the information about his exercise habits.) -- MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm OK with including that. Neutrality^talk 18:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• What makes alcohol different from tobacco or other drugs? According to the WaPo cite, the president is a proud teetotaler who says he has never had a drink, smoked cigarettes or consumed drugs. Trump says he never drank alcohol, smoked tobacco, or used drugs. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd be OK with "Trump says he has never drunk alcohol, smoked tobacco, or used drugs." -- MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

No fast food? He's often been photographed with piles of big macs, etc. He and Clinton had anomalous presidential diets. SPECIFICO talk 18:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

No fast food. True, he loves fast food, but I don't think it's been mentioned as part of his medical reports. When you have a health exam, they always ask you about drinking, smoking, and exercise; they never ask you if you like fast food. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Interestingly, the Bill Clinton biography mentions his affinity for "McDonald's and junk food" under the "public image" section. But given that space is at a premium in this article, I don't think we have the space for it. Neutrality^talk 19:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

We could make room by moving the last paragraph to the Presidency article. His checkups were of interest only during the presidency. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

What we really need, in this section and most of the article, is to replace our best estimates of what secondady-sourced details are noteworthy. We need to replace much of the content with tertiary summaries and evaluations of the details. Right now, critics of this article feel it's biased -- as if we are pointing fingers at verified facts and leading readers to draw adverse inferences. What we really need is sources that make informed and expert inferences about things like Korea, Iran, caged kids, etc. etc. There may well be such a summary on his health and diet, but I don't recall seeing it. I think you are correct, MelanieN that including the fast food without a source that relates it to Trump's obesity, cholesterol, pulmonary challenges, etc. would be finger-pointing best avoided. SPECIFICO talk 19:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@MelanieN: - You should note the reason that Trump reportedly abstains from alcohol - "because he witnessed his brother Fred struggle with alcoholism and later die from it" - as explained here. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe we did include that some years ago, but it was removed as excessive detail. That's the reason he always gives, but there are others; he has also said he believes it gives him an edge in business and personal dealings to always be in perfect control. IMO what we need here is a dozen words on the subject, not a paragraph. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I removed it in this edit —sure seems like it was years ago. The info was first added to the article in 2017. Trump used his brother in his campaign rhetoric and went from not drinking, smoking, or using drugs to never having had a drink or a smoke or used marijuana because of the admired older brother who implored him not to. He doesn’t seem to have mentioned that before the campaign, and, according to niece Mary Trump, rather than admiring his brother, he was "ridiculing him, ostracizing him and, ultimately, ignoring him. Donald did not attend Freddy’s wedding, and on the day Freddy was rushed to the hospital in the direst of conditions, his brother was too busy to stop by." There are also witnesses to Trump drinking light beer and champagne. He gave a different explanation in a Playboy interview in 1990 (transcript) and no explanation in a Piers Morgan interview in 2010. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not relevant for someone to not use tobacco or other recreational drugs, as this is far too common. Abstaining from alcohol is relevant. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The editors involved in this discussion so far are all agreeing to mention that he doesn't drink, smoke, or do drugs. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Yea I agree it should be mentioned. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Support. This is all relevant information about Trump the man himself, which is this article. starship.paint (exalt) 03:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• If we include this — and we shouldn't — it has to be time-specific. If we suggest that Trump sleeps only a few hours per night, then we should say if this is a recent thing, or it has been continuing all his life. Equally did his abstinence from booze commence at his bro's death or has it been lifelong? When did he start playing golf, and when did he stop playing the course? This is not an article about Trump in his 70s and I am sick of editors who continually assert that it is. Follow Wikipedia rules or migrate to Facebook. OK?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Trump has said, repeatedly, that he has never had a drink of alcohol, including when he was in college. [24] He wrote, back in 2004, that he sleeps about four hours a night.[25] He has been playing golf since his college years and "loves the game more than he loves money" according to Jack Nicklaus. There is no need for us to specify when he said these things or whether they are recent; they aren't. We are trying to convey information about key facets of his lifestyle without bloating the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

This has been a helpful discussion; thanks, all, for the input. I think we are reasonably close to agreement (recognizing that consensus does not have to be unanimous). I intend to add the following to the article, right in front of the sentence about exercise:

Trump says he has never drunk alcohol, smoked cigarettes, or used drugs. He sleeps about four or five hours a night.

Sources

Any final comments before I do? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Looks good to me Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion

• A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 唐纳德·特朗普. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 6#唐纳德·特朗普 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BDD (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Resignation of Donald Trump. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 6#Resignation of Donald Trump until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BDD (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Pardon of Donald Trump. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 6#Pardon of Donald Trump until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BDD (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Change "Hush money payments"

How unencylopedic is that phrase. I was confused if I was on Wikpedia or some tabloid magizine! Just change it to Stormy Daniels scandal, thats not as inflammatory. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think "husb money" is a bit tabloid. The whole sordid saga was a bit of a storm in a teacup. It is not illegal to have an fling with a bombshell pornstar who looks like a horse. Under standard Christian doctrine, what Trump did was adultery — or was it fornication? But he's a flawed human being and all of us succumb to "sin". But it wasn't against the law of Minnesota at the time these "sins" were committed. Correct me if I'm wrong. A confidentiality clause is pretty standard these days in legal settlements across the world. So it's hard to see, from a broadsheet point of view, with a 10 year perspective, that this is any more than a storm in a teacup rather than the petticoat hurricane that certain tabloid scribblers devoutly wish for. But then again, I might be wrong.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Please spare us your preaching and judgmentalism ("looks like a horse", seriously? Your opinion of her looks has exactly what to do with this?). This is not about "sin". The issue, and the possible legal jeopardy, is not because he may have had sex with various women. The legal issue has to do with paying them for their silence in order to influence the election.[26] As for "hush money", that term is commonly used in sources, but it may be beneath us as an encyclopedia. I don't really care what we call it. Let's research what it is called by responsible (non-tabloid) sources. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Stormy Daniels responded with "Ladies and Gentlemen, may I present your president." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

That language, Jack, is really distasteful and inappropriate here. Neutrality^talk 21:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I propose "confidentiality payments", or something like that. We need not be salacious here, the content can speak for itself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Something like that would be an improvement, if we can find reliable sourcing to support it. Not "Stormy Daniels," because it's not just her; we probably should also say something about him reimbursing AMI for buying off Karen McDougal. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

"confidentiality payments" is good. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The alternative would be "alleged campaign finance violations" but that may be too narrow. I think hush money is increasingly correct usage rather than colloquial or ironic. SPECIFICO talk 17:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources have all referred to the payments as hush money or hush-money. Here's the latest article in WaPo. I haven't found a single source for confidentiality payments or for calling the agreements with either woman confidentiality agreements, for that matter. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It should just be the most common clear wording used in RS, which is "hush money". Regardless of what you call their contract, the payment is hush money. SPECIFICO talk 21:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

How can it be "hush money", if the public is aware of it? It's like a tabloid heading "The secret he took to his grave..". How's it a secret, if everybody knows about it? GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It was reported later. Neutrality^talk 21:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I oppose a change to this language. "Hush-money payments" is the phrase used in the Encyclopædia Britannica with respect to the investigations into payments made to Stephanie Clifford and Karen McDougal. Other sources use the same language: WaPo, USA Today, Associated Press. Even conservative sources use "hush money"; e.g., the National Review uses the phrase in its news section ([27]) and in commentary pieces [28]). There's no comparable usage of any other phrase: "confidentiality payments" is simply not supported by sources. I suppose "payoffs" would work (WSJ: "Donald Trump Played Central Role in Hush Payoffs to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal"). Neutrality^talk 21:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and the irony is that "hush money" is rather soft-peddling the criminal behavior involved in this transaction. Oh, just hush money. Hush child. Hushabye. It's just the term that RS used, so that's what we should be using here. SPECIFICO talk 21:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)