Talk:Donald Trump

Highlighted open discussions

• None

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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)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. In citations, do not code the archive-related parameters for sources that 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. (RfC October 2021)

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

Abraham accords

The peace deals between Israël and several arabic countries aren't mentionned anywhere in the article while the Abraham Accords were signed in the White House and they are mentionned in the introduction of the article dedicated to Trump's foreign policy. Dimitrius99 (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The so-called Abraham Accords were pomp & circumstance and little substance...agreements signed between nations that were not even hostile at the time. The event happened, and is worth a mention in the former guy's foreign policy article, but there is no historical impact of them that is relevant enough to the man's biographical article here. ValarianB (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

"there is no historical impact of them that is relevant enough to the man's biographical article here". Let me quote some reliable sources

CNN : "President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday joined the foreign ministers of the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain at the White House to mark historic normalization agreements between Israel and the two Arab countries.", "Netanyahu described the day as a "pivot of history, a new dawn of peace."

NBC : "WASHINGTON — Israel signed deals to normalize ties with the Gulf states of the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain on Tuesday that were brokered by President Donald Trump in what is described as a diplomatic breakthrough."

USA Today : "WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump heralded a pair of historic agreements formalizing diplomatic relations between Israel and two Gulf Arab nations in a ceremony Tuesday on the White House South Lawn."

MSNBC "Netanyahu says agreement 'can end the Arab-Israeli conflict once and for all'"

Times of Israël : "These phrases may sound pompous, but there is some truth to them. The agreements signed Tuesday in Washington are a genuine breakthrough in Israel’s 72-year struggle to become an accepted member of the region in which it is located. Until today, many Israelis felt their country belonged more to Europe than to the Middle East. Now they may have cause to rethink. "

I completely disagree with you when you say that there isn't any historical impact. First of all, one could argue that these agreements is the beginning of the end for the two states solution since arabic states accepted to collaborate with Israël without asking for specific actions regarding the Israelo-Palestinian conflict. Secondly since multiples reliable sources (if not all) use words like breakthrough, historical agreement, your personnal geopolitical opinion isn't enough for refusing to mention this event. Finally this event is mentionned in the introduction of other language versions of this article, like in the French or the Italian ones.--Dimitrius99 (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

We are not a newspaper, and we do not write like a newspaper. Despite their flowery language, the signing of documents does not in and of itself demonstrate "historical impact". What actual impact has it had? What one could argue like WP:OR. This isn't personal geopolitical opinion. There is much debate out there about how significant these really are. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I was just refuting ValarianB argument : he was saying that these facts shouldn't even be mentioned here because they did not have any historical impact and I proved that many reliable sources say the contrary. Since it's an event that received great attention from the international press, I demand that it is mentioned somewhere in the article. Something like this in the article "On August 13, 2020, President Donald Trump published on Twitter a joint statement between Israel, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States where the first ones announced their decision to normalize their relations. The statement marked the first public normalization of relations between an Arab country and Israel since that of Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994. On the aftermath of this announcement, Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan and Oman also agreed to normalize their relations with Israël. The formal agreements between Israël and the United Arab Emirates and Israel and Bahrain was signed at the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C on 15 September 2020" and add in the introduction after the negociation with North Korea "his administration supervised the peace agreement between Israël annd the United Arab Emirates". English is not my first language so one may change the wording. Dimitrius99 (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

You, whose 27 of 30 lifetime edits have been to this page pumping up Donald J. Trump's endeavors, have not refuted a thing. You found contemporary news accounts of the event that do not speak to their importance or impact on Trump personally. It is suitable to mention in the presidency article. Not here. ValarianB (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The foreign policy section of this article covers things that are called "significant" or "historical" much less often than these are by reliable sources. I did an analysis with links in one of the previous discussions on this issue, but I am not sure exactly where that went. My analysis showed that these agreements are considered the "most significant" foreign policy achievement of his time in office, and it's actually called as much (with the words "most significant" used directly) by a decent number of reliable sources. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

As I said a month ago, now at Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_135#Trump's_Middle_Eastern_brokering, "a face-saving nothingburger", symbolic gesture accomplished nothing of substance. Zaathras (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

You have to be honest : whatever the event, one may find a source saying that it is not important at all. You may be a geopolitical genius and find the right article that expresses the opinion of future historians, but the purpose of Wikipedia is not to find the "true" significance of these events, it is to express the weighted opinions found on all reliable sources.--Dimitrius99 (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Not great timing to start up a thread about peace breaking out in the middle east. This is just why I said the last time this was raised we need to wait and see if this has any real lasting impact rather than just being a photo op.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Each time an event happens in the world we don't wait ten years to see the consequences before mentioning it in Wikipedia. As I said I am not even in favor of saying that Abraham accords are historic, I just consider that due to the numerous reactions they raised one should mention their existence somewhere in the article.--Dimitrius99 (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Nor do we include every international treaty. This is an article about Trump, not his presidency.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, by necessity, a biography of him will cover aspects of his time as a president. I note below 9 sources directly linked that lend credence to the DUE weight in RS argument for including this (at least including this over at least 3 things covered in that section here now). There are more out there - I will start linking more, and more, when I have time. Either the section needs to be gutted with the things less due than this removed, or this needs to be added based on the amount of weight it's given in reliable sources. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

We have a separate article on his presidency. And everything the president does gets coverage, even going golfing.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Sources from past discussions

I've started going through and accumulating RS that lend to the due weight of this in this article (either by saying it's a significant achievement or notable or something similar) - at least more so than the current foreign policy things in this article. Additions to this list would be appreciated. I'm sure there's many more. There's a clear consensus that, regardless of their historical significance, they are the most significant positive achievement by him in office. We must, for due weight, present these in this article if we are going to present other things that are much less due, such as the Saudi arms agreement (less due than this), troop changes (aside from the withdrawal, which is more due than this), NATO comments (didn't receive near as much praise/criticism in RS as this), and Israel related comments aside from the condemnation for the Golan Heights debacle (again, less due than this). I get that people are trying not to add, then let's consider removing some of those less due things. Right now, the section focuses primarily on things that garnered criticism or appear negative (such as "reversing his pre-election position"), and it is due weight for this to be added as well given the amount of significance it is given by RS. Note that in this sort of instance, we are not supposed to attempt to determine significance on our own - we are to treat it how RS treat it - and these sources (among more out there) show clearly that it is considered more significant than some of the things in the article right now by RS. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Praised by Biden
• Lands "victory"
• First unambiguous success
• Diplomatic "achievement"
• "deserves credit"
• Five reasons why they "matter"
• "may prove to be the most significant foreign policy achievement of his first term"
• Pelosi: "an important day"
• "groundbreaking"

I completely agree with you, if this fact is not deemed to be important enough to be mentioned, then one should probably delete three quarters of this article.Dimitrius99 (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

If there is content you feel should be removed, please specify which and why. SPECIFICO talk 08:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

It was essentially a figure of speech since I foremost argue that one should mention Abraham Accords.Dimitrius99 (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I specified three things that are less due than this based on the amount of significance RS attribute to this (and the amount of coverage as a whole, which there's a ton of), and you have yet to respond. Please see my header to this section above the list of sources to see what I would like replaced with a balanced view of these accords - i.e. including them, as well as including the criticism from some sources as "useless" or "for show". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

By all means, you are free to pursue whatever other edits of content you feel is UNDUE. That does not change the fact that this thread is pointless, a waste of time, redundant etc. I see someone has reversed my close. I remain uninvolved in this discussion, except to reaffirm my close and express my disappointment that anyone would feel this thread -- and its diffuse extension -- is a valuable use of editor time. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I would just like to quote the first sentence of the article "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" : "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. " If one considers that Abraham accords are not worth mentioning, they will have to prove that their importance is not supported by any reliable source, while Berchanhimez already gave 9 counterexamples amongst some of the most popular newspapers of the USA.Dimitrius99 (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

None of which apply personally to Trump the man, they apply to Trump the president. Some people here need a reminder that these are separate topics. ValarianB (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks to me like a convulated distinction that could be used to arbitrarily reject basically any event happening during his presidency if one doesn't want it to be mentioned. Could you thus give me a precise criterion that could help us find the line between what should be mentioned here and what shoudn't ? Dimitrius99 (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I undid the closure of this. Discussion was actively ongoing, and closing an actively ongoing discussion is inappropriate. Trump the man has an article here which has a section about "foreign policy" as Trump the president. I said above that these sources alone (let alone the others out there, I can keep adding if you want) prove that this topic is more due for this article than at least 3 other things that are covered in that section right now. Why are the three negative things being covered but not something more due based on coverage in reliable sources? That's a violation of NPOV and the due weight policy. Part of the reason is because people quickly shut down any discussion of this after sources are provided that do not agree with their desired conclusion/outcome. I note that nobody has yet to say why the sources provided do not prove this is more due weight for this article than the other things in the section right now - that's not a proper end to a discussion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

You have provided nothing that is noteworthy or relevant to Trump's biography. Yes, there is a short section regarding foreign policy here, it provides a brief summary of events, which can than be expanded upon at the sub-article. Inexperienced editors frequently get a wrong notion in their heads that "IF NOT IN MAIN ARTICLE THEN IT MUST BE CENSORSHIP!", but, we have child and parent article relationships so the parent does not get bloated and overly-long, it has nothing to do with hiding or burying information. ValarianB (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Summary style says we should summarize the most notable or due aspects of the child article. I went into three topics in my intro to this section that are less due for this article based on the amount of reliable sources that give coverage and give credence to the significance of this. Those three topics should be removed too then, if this one isn't added. We don't just randomly pick and choose what to include in the "brief summary" - we base it on due weight in reliable sources. Again, I'm not saying add this and do nothing - I'm saying replace some of the less due aspects of that section with this. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Specific proposal

I propose adding the following specific text to replace the current part of this section about Saudi Arabia. Per summary style, we should look at the child article and due weight in reliable sources to determine what is important enough to cover in this summary here. The editors at that article have determined that there is more weight given to the Abraham Accords, such that it is mentioned in the lead of that article, while Saudi Arabia isn't even mentioned but in two paragraphs. As a comparison, the section that article has on the Abraham Accords is almost twice as long.

• Text to be added in place: Trump and his staff brokered a normalization of relations agreement between Israel and the UAE, which was then followed by further agreements with Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. While these have been called the most significant foreign policy accomplishment of his administration, many scholars feel he overstated the significance of the agreements and that they are unlikely to produce lasting impact on peace in the region.

Sources for this text would be the following: as well as some of the links I included in the section above. People who think this should not be included are asked to please express how not including this, while including something much less covered in reliable sources (the Saudi Arabia sentences), is compliant with WP:DUE and WP:SS. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I support your proposal, it is balanced, it is sourced and it replaces a paragraph of less importance comparing the two aspects in the child article.--Dimitrius99 (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose "Many scholars feel he overstated the significance of the agreements and that they are unlikely to produce lasting impact on peace in the region", says it all, it is too early to say if this will be HIS lasting legacy or even a last legacy of his presidency. It is just puffery.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's be honest one second : Donald Trump met with Kim Jung Un three times, it was considered historic at that times but it led to all but nothing. Trump criticized Nato several times but it led to all but nothing. Would you support erasing these two events from this article ? One has to be coherent, this discussion has to lead to something because it is clear that if Abraham accords are'nt worth mentioning, these two events aren't either. So what are you proposing to solve this contradiction ?Dimitrius99 (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

No. The reason why the North Korea shtick belongs here is precisely because the former guy made it so intensely personal ....the insult-trading, the massive super-hype leading up to it, and the embarrassing letdown at the end. His NK foreign policy is notable specifically because of the spectacular failure. See Inside the Collapse of Trump’s Korea Policy for a primer. ValarianB (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Right?, this was very personal, Personal meetings, glad-handing. This was Trump using his personality (not the state department) to court a leader, not a nation.Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose For reasons outlined earlier. Notable for the presidency, not the man. ValarianB (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I am still asking for elements allowing us to clearly draw the line between Trump the president and Trump the man. There are several sentences where it is not Trump but his administration which are mentioned in the article, for instance "The Trump administration separated more than 5,400 children of migrant families from their parents at the U.S.–Mexico border while attempting to enter the U.S, a sharp increase in the number of family separations at the border starting from the summer of 2017." Since this policy was announced not by Trump but by Jeff Sessions, one may argue that it concerns Trump the president and not Trump the man. But I would be glad if you give me precise definition of Trump the man. --Dimitrius99 (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

What you're asking for isn't relevant. We as editors make the distinction as we evaluate the sources for a given topic. It's really time for you to move on from this...approx 95% of your edits are specifically Trump-related, and this hyper-focus is not going to make for a long editing career here. ValarianB (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

If you really looked at my profile you would have understand that I'm french and that I have mainly written in my first language on very different subjects for years. It just happened that looking at Trump's english page few days ago and comparing it to the french one, I found the first very biaised and thought that neutrality should be ensured everywhere, so yes for once have written in the english Wikipedia for this specific topic. I was absolutely shocked by the wall of partisanship I found, with people openly expressing their opinion on Trump as if it was an argument and not looking for any concensus. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere with people filibustering any attempt to make articles like this one just a little bit less biaised using fuzzy concepts without even defining them. Dimitrius99 (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• That entire section is about the "presidency, not the man", so under your opinion, the entire section should be removed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Your sarcasm misses the mark, widely. The section provides a brief introduction to the presidency, containing a link to the larger sub-article. ValarianB (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

    ValarianB, per WP:SS, we should be summarizing the sub-article and the most important/significant information in that article. The Abraham Accords are significant enough to be specifically called out in the lead of that article - and I've provided multiple sources to back up that. The other things covered here are not covered in the lead of that article and are less significant - thus per WP:SS we should replace. Why are you using these circular arguments that aren't based on policy to fight this? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I and others have already provided a rebuttal for this argument. Repeating it again would be pointless. ValarianB (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

ValarianB, you have provided no rebuttal to the argument that we are violating summary style by only summarizing negative, unimportant things here. Reliable sources repeatedly call this one of the most (if not the most) significant thing he did as a president. It is so significant it is included in the lead section of the sub-article - which is another argument that per WP:SS we should include it here. So what's your rebuttal to that? Please repeat it for clarity. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

That is incorrect. First, your argument 'was' rebutted. Second, a more limited sub-article will focus on some lesser details that are not significant to the bio. SPECIFICO talk 21:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, if it's a "lesser detail", then why is it the only one of the things in question that's specifically in the lead of that article, as well as being called significant more frequently by reliable sources? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Two wrongs do not make a right if there is content that is objected to suggest its removal in another thread.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

In an article about pests of the Tasmanian Donkey, we will devote considerable space to the scarlet flea. But the scarlet flea is not, itself, a very important insect and is scarcely mentioned when entomologists gather. SPECIFICO talk 18:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, no, but if we had a child article about pests of the Tasmanian Donkey, we would summarize that article, including the scarlet flea, in Tasmanian Donkey per WP:SS - which is a project consensus. Child articles are summarized at their parent articles - we don't pick and choose random information to include on the parent articles. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Nope. At any rate, your view has been rejected here, and it's time to move on. SPECIFICO talk 20:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, it's not my view. It's the project wide consensus of WP:SS that is being ignored. Nobody here has given any reason to ignore WP:SS at all - much less a good reasoning. You've done just what everyone else has done - said "nope" (quite literally) and provided no reason that the guideline does not apply here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I would gladly do that if one gives me precise definitions of Trump the man and Trump the president, so I could propose some modications that are coherent with your vision. This article is already too long so it could be eventually a good thing.Dimitrius99 (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Then start a thread about that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Still waiting to have some more opinions respond - so far only two people have opposed this and neither has actually explained why WP:SS doesn't apply to this situation. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC

Should the change suggested below be made to the Foreign policy section of this article, considering the sources below and the guideline that we should summarize the sub-article at Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Please revise this question so as not to state your interpretation of SS as a "need". What you suggest is manifestly not required, as has already been explained above. SPECIFICO talk 23:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Replaced with "guideline". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Contrary to your final post before this RfC, I explained to you why your interpretation of SS is incorrect. It's pretty surprising to see you beating the dead horse with this RfC. SPECIFICO talk 01:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I never got an explanation from you as to why it’s wrong, and I asked for other editors opinions and none came forth. An RfC will get some uninvolved (and quite frankly less POV) editors involved that can opine based on the policies, guidelines, and sources rather than their personal opinion. If the RfC shows most editors believe the same, then I’ll still disagree but that’s a clear consensus of uninvolved editors. I find it odd that you’re making attacks against me for following the dispute resolution process as listed on WP:DR. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Significance is not transitive. SPECIFICO talk 01:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Specific change and further sources

Replace the paragraph about Saudi Arabia with the following, or add the following to the section: Text to be added: Trump and his staff brokered a normalization of relations agreement between Israel and the UAE, which was then followed by further agreements with Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. While these have been called the most significant foreign policy accomplishment of his administration, many scholars feel he overstated the significance of the agreements and that they are unlikely to produce lasting impact on peace in the region. Sources for this text would be the following: Further sources about significance of this topic. Praised by Biden Lands "victory" First unambiguous success Diplomatic "achievement" "deserves credit" Five reasons why they "matter" "may prove to be the most significant foreign policy achievement of his first term" Pelosi: "an important day" "groundbreaking" "Trump sealed the Israel-Morocco accord" "Former President Trump forged normalisation agreements"

• Support as proposer - we must summarize the "most significant" aspects of the sub article, and this is the only individual aspect of Trump's foreign policy that is significant enough to be in the lead of that article. Furthermore, reliable sources continually call it significant. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Include as a principle. For what Trump is worth, this has been a significant part of his foreign policy. However, I do agree that the section has to be reorganised and compressed, because there seems to be too much text in it. I would also suggest to shorten the sentence, like: Trump and his staff have brokered the Abraham Accords between Israel and UAE, followed by similar agreements with Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. It is considered his administration's most significant foreign policy achievement, although many scholars have voiced concern over their durability. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  I'd be interested to see your sources for "most significant..." and for the "Trump and..." I have not seen anything to suggest he was involved in negotiations. SPECIFICO talk 20:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  Jeez, make it clearer that through your comments in this discussion you haven't actually looked at the sources. To quote the BBC source: Mr Trump, who presented his Middle East peace plan in January aimed at resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict, helped broker both accords. Hell, the Time Magazine literally says he deserves credit for it. The NBC source says represents President Donald Trump's first genuine foreign policy success. These aren't even the only sources out there - but it's pretty clear that reliable sources widely consider it a "success" for Trump himself (not just his administration), and that they consider it one of the (if not the) most significant foreign policy achievements of his time in office. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, you shouldn't have to reach that far if the mainstream view were that Trump was instrumental. And "helped broker..." when he's the most powerful man in the world -- saying he "helped" Jared -- is damning with faint praise. What do Washington Post, NY Times, AP, Politico, The Hill say? Our article on Abraham Accords attributes the accords to Jared Kushner and his right-hand man, Avi Berkowitz. Scant mention of Trump. You'll recall that Jared and Avi were nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by Trump's attorney, Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz did not nominate Trump in connection with the Abraham Accords. SPECIFICO talk 20:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  I hardly think the BBC, NBC News, and Time Magazine are a "reach". But the NYT states he helped negotiate them. It seems odd that aside from the AP (which doesn't seem to have any indication of who was primarily at part), you choose virtually entirely sources with a left-leaning bias. It's in fact you who are reaching now - for any reason not to include this information - and it's becoming disruptive to this discussion. Please let other people comment and we can have a resolution to this. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  Per your own Summary Style premise, our WP Abraham Accords article makes it very clear Trump had minimal involvement except that it happened under his watch and he had photo ops etc. when it was announced. I don't see anyone other than yourself relying on this premise, but now I have assumed your premise and shown that it leads to the opposite of what you advocate. That is the strongest form of refutation. So I hope you will drop the stick. SPECIFICO talk 21:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support (with modifications). 1. As numerous sources show, these treaties are considered a major event in Trump's presidency. Even his opponents said so. They must at least be mentioned in this article. (Case in point: We mention the Israel–Jordan peace treaty in the article about Bill Clinton.) 2. Any deletions (e.g. of the paragraph about Saudi Arabia) should be discussed separately. Let's just add the sentence(s) for now. 3. Strike the "many scholars" subsentence. I checked most of the sources listed above and several related Wikipedia articles, and didn't find any support for that claim. NYT mentions "some analysts said his claims were overblown", which is a much weaker claim. None of the sources and WP articles talk about "lasting impact" or "durability". 4. Since it's closely related, we should mention that the so-called Trump peace plan had failed. Viz. NBC: "Thursday's agreement was the product in part of an earlier diplomatic failure." 5. Replace "Trump and his staff" by "Trump's administration". Kushner was the main driver. 6. "his administration's most significant foreign policy achievement" is a bit too strong. Vox cautiously writes: "...the president’s diplomatic efforts in the Middle East may prove to be the most significant foreign policy achievement of his first term". Most other sources don't use superlatives. Let's say something like "...considered one of his presidency's most significant..." or simply "...considered a significant foreign policy achievement of ...". — Chrisahn (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  Editors of this page have for years, repeatedly, focused it on Trump personally, not his presidency, his businesses, his TV and wrestling ventures -- except as details relate to his personal involvement in such details. Per our Abraham Accords article, Trump was not involved in the negotiations. SPECIFICO talk 00:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

1. "...except as details relate to his personal involvement..." – Not true. A large part (between ~30% and 100%) of many sections is not about his personal involvement, but about events indirectly related to him, e.g. Donald Trump#Foundation, Donald Trump#Support from the far-right, Donald Trump#Protests, Donald Trump#Family separation at border, Donald Trump#Migrant detentions, Donald Trump#Trump wall and government shutdown, Donald Trump#Syria, Donald Trump#Russian election interference, Donald Trump#Special counsel investigation, Donald Trump#Associates. 2. Trump was involved in the negotiations. See e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4]. — Chrisahn (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Chrisahn, any qualms if I add some those sources to the box above? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course not, go ahead! :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Then our article on it is in violation of WP:DUE, because a plethora of reliable sources claim he was directly involved. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Press release fluff describing no substantive role by Trump, confirming our Abraham Accords article. SPECIFICO talk 03:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

If you're seriously calling the in depth coverage in the box above "press release fluff", then it's clear you have no business editing in this topic area as you're just being disruptive at this point. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The Israel-Jordan peace agreement is not a case in point. For starters, Jordan and Israel had actually been at war twice (in 1948 and 1967), and Clinton was actively involved in persuading a reluctant King Hussein. The parties involved in the joint statements had never been at war and had carried on clandestine relations for many years. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

"The parties involved in the joint statements had never been at war" – Wrong. Sudan had been at war with Israel twice (same wars as Jordan). "had carried on clandestine relations for many years" – Correct. Again, same as Jordan, as your source mentions. "Clinton was actively involved" – Your source mentions one meeting between Clinton and Hussein. It also says: "The Americans would not be in the room and not mediate the talks." Trump had repeated phone calls with Netanyahu, MBZ, and certainly lots of talks with Kushner. In conclusion: The Jordan-Israel agreement is very similar to the treaties with UAE, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco, and Trump was about as involved in the talks as Clinton. Definitely a case in point. — Chrisahn (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Sudan and Morocco aren't party to what the Trump administration called the Abraham Accords. Morocco's agreement doesn't mention it, and what kind of an agreement is this undated declaration of something signed by somebody and witnessed by Steven M. Mnuchin? On April 19, Sudan repealed the law on boycotting Israel and endorsed the "establishment of an independent Palestinian state as part of a two-state settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict." Expert opinion, Lucy Kurtzer-Ellenbogen, United States Institute of Peace: "'Were one to have slept through the last nine months and missed that news story (about the accords), the breakthrough agreements would not be apparent in the context of dynamics around the current crisis,' she said." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

1. "Sudan and Morocco aren't party to [the so-called Abraham Accords]" — Correct, but irrelevant. Please read what this RfC is about. 2 "something signed by somebody" – Sounds pretty silly, and I have no idea what you're trying to say. Would you say the Washington Declaration is "something signed by somebody"? 3a. "Sudan repealed the law on boycotting Israel" – Yes, that's a direct result of the normalization agreement. What are you trying to say? EDIT: 3b. Sudan endorsed the "establishment of an independent Palestinian state as part of a two-state settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict." Sounds exactly like the Jordanian position. What's your point? 4. "the breakthrough agreements would not be apparent in the context of dynamics around the current crisis" – Neither is the breakthrough agreement of 1994 apparent in the current crisis. So what? All of these agreements (with Jordan, UAE, Sudan, etc.) are still breakthrough agreements. Thousands of sources use words to that effect. In conclusion: The 2020 agreements are very similar to the one in 1994, and Trump's involvement in 2020 is very similar to Clinton's involvement back then. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

RE 2: No, it's a declaration signed by King Hussein, Prime Minister Rabin, and President Clinton. 3: Israel and Jordan signed a peace treaty, Israel and Sudan didn't, and Israel's position on the two-state settlement wasn't as cemented (literally) as today. 4: The peace agreements between Israel and Egypt/Jordan have held for decades. What did the 2020 peace agreements/declaration of intent accomplish, so far, at any rate? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose has nothing to do with the man personally, which is what this article is. Mention it in the Presidency of... article, where it belongs. Zaathras (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Like Zaathras says, nothing to do with the man personally. Belongs in Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration, not here. --Calton | Talk 06:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Calton: @Zaathras: - any comments on why many reliable sources say this has to do with the person, and not just his administration? Seems like you two are using the same disproven argument SPECIFICO did - and ignoring the sources for your own personal opinions. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

    IMO users have handled your repetitive arguments rather handily, and you have debunked nothing. There is no personal involvement in the so-called Abraham Accords, what you're reading into the sources simply does not exist. As the 2nd half of the proposed text states, "Many scholars feel he overstated the significance of the agreements and that they are unlikely to produce lasting impact on peace in the region", which sums this up rather succinctly. Zaathras (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

    Zaathras, you're free to have that opinion, but on Wikipedia we follow the beliefs/opinions that are expressed in multiple reliable sources - I linked many sources above that ascribe this to the person. This makes your opposition contrary to guidelines and you haven't yet explained why those guidelines do not apply in this case, or why they should be ignored. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  And the way we follow the sources is by consensus of the editors assembled here. You and Chrisahn have gathered virtually no support whatsoever for your views and your edits. You may have noticed folks are declining to repeat their responses every time you repeat empty assertions with misinterpreted or missing evidence. Maybe try something new that we all might be interested in working on? One cannot get peeved every time the world declines ones suggestions. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  Well-aware of what due weight here means, good sir. You cherry-picked a few puff pieces, that is all. Nothing indicates that DJT had a personal hand in any of the negotiations, and his well-known disdain for the details and minutiae of actually governing was well-known. Basically, what you're championing here is his signature on the final document. That the Accords were completed is relatively notable, which is why it is fit to mention in a sub-article. Not this one. Zaathras (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  They aren't cherry-picked - they are multiple reliable sources, both national and international, that claim he had a personal hand in the negotiations. Your personal disagreement with this does not change the fact, and your attempt to discredit reliable sources is borderline disruptive. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  They are indeed cherry-picked, and what's worse, and really kinda sad, is that the sources don't even say what you claim they say. (1) TheHill noted Biden's observation that the Accords were the culmination of the work of multiple administrations, not just Trump's. (2) The Arab Weekly notes the "huge achievement", but again highlight's Biden not crediting Trump personally. (3) Foreignpolicy.com is an OpEd by one of Bush's old neocon pals, thus irrelevant. (4) the BBC's "a diplomatic achievement for President Trump" is not ascribing it to him personally, and goes on to note his abject failure to achieve his claimed ""Deal of the Century". (5) Time, begins with "Trump deserves credit" but concludes it is "not a major enough issue to gain Trump a significant amount of voters that weren’t already planning to vote for him". What we draw from that it that the "win" was largely symbolic and had no impact on his (now-concluded) presidential legacy. You're 0-for-5, it's not even worth continuing to analyze the rest of the sources, tbh. SO, if you wanna play the "borderline disruptive" card, we can begin with your misrepresentation of reliable sources. Zaathras (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  I am misrepresenting nothing - you're using Biden's observations, not what the reliable sources are saying themselves - Biden's observations are less reliable than what the reliable source says themselves. And I don't see how saying it's Trump's achievement is not ascribing it to him personally. We don't care what Biden says on the matter - we care what reliable sources do - and as you note, multiple of the sources ascribe it to Trump even though Biden (for obvious reasons) doesn't want to. There's no misrepresentation - you're the one cherry-picking specific parts of the articles instead of looking at them as a whole - just because they cover what Biden says doesn't mean that they aren't overall giving Trump credit for them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  I'm just going by the sources presented, which is what you are pointedly not doing. There will be no further responses after this. Zaathras (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose No source reports more than perfunctory, ceremonial involvement by Trump. I have given more detailed reasons and sources above. Our article on the accords details the roles of the negotiators, documenting Trump's non-involvement. SPECIFICO talk 07:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Wrong. Lots of sources document repeated phone calls between Trump and all other leaders involved. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I can add nothing more to what I have said above. Maybe at some point in the future when scholars assign credit for peace breaking out in the middle eat to this and assign personal responsibilty to Trump, then yes. But it's too early and just a bit too puffy to say what its significance is now, especialy as peace is yet to break out.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

References

hat note with link to Presidency of Donald Trump

I am not sure why this hat note was removed - that other articles don't have such a notice is not a reason or rationale. I added the link to Presidency of Donald Trump for several reasons. First, most readers may not know that article exists - the link is given in the article to be sure, but far down in the article and not exactly conspicuous. Second, on these talk pages it has been repeatedly - endlessly - repeated that this is a biography, not the article on the presidency, as the reason for preventing the addition of material that is more presidential than biographical related. That being the case, this article should highlight the presidential article. There has also been endless discussion about adding a tag that the article is too long - I thought the hat note would be a useful compromise in that regard: A notice to prospective editors to add presidential material to the presidential article. I am sure there are other good reasons for advertising the existence of the presidential article at the top of this article. Since I don't see the given statement as a valid argument for removing the hat note, I will restore it. If the ensuing discussion here determines otherwise, then it can be removed then. Bdushaw (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

"I am sure there are other good reasons for advertising the existence of the presidential article at the top of this article." That's exactly the issue with it: it's advertising. Our job here is not to bombard readers with "hey, look at these other articles we have on Trump!" like a pop-up ad. See WP:ADVOCACY. The hatnote is for items that have a genuine chance of being confused with the page title. Presidency of Donald Trump is not one. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely unnecessary to have a hatnote for the presidency article. Hatnotes are for places where readers at a genuine chance of being at the wrong page. If you are on the page simply called "Donald Trump" obviously it is his biography page. If readers do not know about that specific article they will find out about it naturally. I.e. if they are looking for info on his presidency they scroll down to subsection called "Presidency" and easily see there is a dedicated article.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 02:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

These are not valid arguments; the points made are not correct (hyperbole; "obviously his biography page"...that's obviously incorrect...per these Talk pages). Given the emphasis on these very Talk pages to placing presidential material on the "Presidency of Donald Trump" page, that article should have visits comparable to the biography page. People visit the Donald Trump pages mostly out of his presidency and politics; we export/should be exporting most of that material to the Presidency page, as has been repeatedly emphasized here. But as the graphic below shows, the Donald Trump page visits are an order of magnitude more than the Presidency page - people don't know the Presidency page exists; they are not finding it. Wikipedia pages should be making things easy for the reader.

Reader visits to "Donald Trump" and "Presidency of Donald Trump"

Bdushaw (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Well yes I do not think it is incorrect to say this is obviously his biographical page. The page is simply called "Donald Trump" nothing more or less so obviously since it specifies nothing further is going to the man himself, not specifically his business career or his political career, just the person, i.e. a summary of everything he done/ noted for. How is that not obvious by the title? that article should have visits comparable to the biography page. People visit the Donald Trump pages mostly out of his presidency and politics Well that is a huge assumption to make... Though assuming that is true which I am not convinced, first time the readers come to the page they will see the lead. Assuming they want to find presidency infomation they will make there way to the presidency section via the table of contents of which there is a "main article" template there linking readers there (assuming they do not want to read the shorter summary on this article).  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 14:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Not a huge assumption at all! The source of the interest in this page is demonstrated by the uploaded figure - the huge numbers, and spikes in those numbers, are associated with Donald as president. These Talk pages and its archives are full of incidences where material has been reverted out and more appropriate for the presidential page - even our own editors are confused. To rely on the link somewhere down in the article (the presidential page is not even in the lead, that might be a compromise) for people to get the message that there is this whole other article is not working. This page and the presidential page should be coordinated; that is how their size can be reduced. As I said, there are a lot of reasons to advertise the Presidency of Donald Trump article at the top of this article. Bdushaw (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Well unless you have any meaningful evidence, it is still seems like an unfounded assumption. I would oppose such a hatnote as this time. Readers can very easily and naturally find a link to that article already.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Any attempt to rectify the "problem" you're identifying by the graph is an attempt to right great wrongs. If the answer to the problem "not enough people are viewing this article" (which I do not consider a serious problem) is to abandon hatnote rules, then, in the words of John Lennon, "you can count me out." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Bdushaw, please see WP:RELATED for why hatnotes aren't usually used in that manner. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

On WP:RELATED, I see the following quote: This guideline does not discourage the use of disambiguation hatnotes in a situation where separate topics are related, but could nonetheless be referred to by the same title and would thus qualify for disambiguation,... The question comes down to whether Donald Trump and Presidency of Donald Trump could be referred to by the same title. I would argue, which I have above, that that is the case here - there is confusion over which article is the primary for President Donald Trump, and people are not finding the latter. As I've noted, the numbers by visits suggest so, and the history of that confusion (constant reversions of material that is better suited on the latter article) by editors to this article and its Talk pages suggest so. There was an argument above that this article could never be confused as anything other than a biography, but that's not true - people come here to find out about President Donald Trump. Those following this discussion should note that I am advocating a small change that strengthens a path for the reduction in size of this article - a path for reducing the size of the Presidency section of this article and more strongly pairing this article with Presidency of Donald Trump. I've read the opposition statements...they are baffling. Bdushaw (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity between the titles "Donald Trump" and "Presidency of Donald Trump". If you mean there is ambiguity between the subjects of Donald Trump and his presidency, that is what WP:RELATED addresses, and advises against. It is presumptive to assume that everyone who comes here wants to read about just one of many, many sections and sub-articles we have on this subject. — Goszei (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The first sentence hits the nail on the head, there is no ambiguity here.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

An alternative

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

---

I agree with Bdushaw that it's problematic that so few readers are finding their way to Presidency of Donald Trump, given that Trump's presidency is what most of the visitors to this page are seeking to learn about. But I also agree with those who note that hatnotes are solely for disambiguation, not advertising other related pages. Fortunately, there's another way that we could help people find the presidency page: better wikilinking. Specifically, placing a wikilink in the first sentence, changing served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021 to served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. In fact, that link was included in option A, which achieved consensus here, just no one ever changed the article to match. There was previous discussion here that removed the presidency link from the first paragraph; the objection I made when I came across it after it closed is relevant here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• I would still oppose putting it in the lead paragraph like that, seems pretty MOS:EGGy to me. The most natural link for "president of the United States" is the office, not his presidency article.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• That said, the article currently has a very MOS:EGGy start, in that many readers evidently come to this page expecting its main topic to be his presidency, yet the actual article on that is only linked near the end of the third paragraph, "Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics.", hidden away after much more significant biographical points including "He owned the Miss Universe brand of beauty pageants from 1996 to 2015." If we want readers to expect this article to cover Trump's presidency in summary style, the link should be prominent and explicit in the first paragraph. Propose:
  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. The presidency of Donald Trump was unprecedented in many ways.
  That keeps "served as the 45th president of the United States" intact, and serves as a simple neutral introductory sentence to the detail later in the lead. . . dave souza, talk 16:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

  How do we know that readers come here to learn about his presidency? Our presidency articles in general get into detail and policy issues that may not be as interesting to a mass readership. SPECIFICO talk 23:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

  @ SPECIFICO – Don't know, that's the premise discussed by Bdushaw and Spy-cicle above, a reasonable inference from edits and comments, but simply for clarity it works better to link openly to presidency of Donald Trump before going into less famous career points, instead of hiding it in the piped link "presidency" near the end of the third paragraph. . dave souza, talk 06:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  Making the wording even more neutral, I've boldly added "The presidency of Donald Trump increased his fame." instead of obscure piped link. . . dave souza, talk 07:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  I have reverted the bold edit [5]. I have strongly disputed that intial premise since there is no meaningful evidence of it thus far. This is a solution in search of a problem, which does not exist. Adding "The presidency of Donald Trump increased his fame." Adds nothing of substance for readers. Most presidents have increased their 'fame' after their presidency given the nature of the office.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  There's no longer any link in the lead to presidency of Donald Trump, as far as I can see, Please consider where it's best placed. Presumably you don't think this topic should be excluded from the lead, or obscured so that it's hard for readers to find. . . . dave souza, talk 13:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  Surely readers will see the huge list of links in the infobox? I don't see any pressing need for such a link, at least not up top. SPECIFICO talk 13:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• It seems that there's still some disagreement in this area. I've aligned the lead to the RfC result, as that's what's in current consensus item 50. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  Actually in direct discussions about that wikilinks in the lead paragraph like this [6] consensus was building to not have the link there. The only reason that formed was becuase there were hardly any options for at the time status quo "president of the United States" link. If we had both options for both it would have doubled the number of options. Though I suppose I could direct, proper RfC on it though I thought we already had one...  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Convening of grand jury

@Soibangla: What's the source for your edit? WaPo says "was convened recently," and all other sources I've seen based their reporting on WaPo's. WaPo also says that "It is also unclear when or even whether the grand jury will be asked to consider returning any indictments." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, please note WaPo reported "Manhattan's district attorney has convened the grand jury that is expected to decide whether to indict former president Donald Trump," rather than "a" grand jury, the latter suggesting it's new, because googling "Vance grand jury" shows the GJ has been seated since last year. soibangla (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Soibangla, googling "Vance grand jury" I got the same results I got when I googled Trump+grand jury+new york, i.e., no source saying that the grand jury has been seated since last year. Which sources say that? According to AP, this grand jury is new, and that there was another, investigative one that issued subpoenas. The Democratic prosecutor has been using an investigative grand jury through the course of his probe to issue subpoenas and obtain documents. That panel kept working while other grand juries and court activities were shut down because of the coronavirus pandemic. The investigation includes scrutiny of Trump’s relationship with his lenders; a land donation he made to qualify for an income tax deduction; and tax write-offs his company claimed on millions of dollars in consulting fees it paid. The new grand jury could eventually be asked to consider returning indictments. While working on that case, it also will be hearing other matters. The Post reported that the grand jury will meet three days a week for six months. That does not say that the grand jury is considering indictments. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Use "tools" in google to exclude results from this month, like this: https://i.imgur.com/SilQPFF.png. The very first WaPo line says "expected to decide whether to indict" and then "it also will be hearing other matters. The Post reported that the grand jury will meet three days a week for six months." soibangla (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I now see the AP story which is different from what WaPo reported, and the latter story drove the coverage. soibangla (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, in my view the WaPo story which broke the news was not clear it was a new, special GJ, but subsequent independent reporting was, so I added AP and "special." soibangla (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Trump's campaign message shifted to appeals to racism in an attempt to reclaim voters lost from his base.

As Wikipedia usually attempts to avoid directly referring to Trump as a racist should this sentence be rephrased? Transcendent Presence (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I just changed the sentence to the version you self-reverted. Either way, IMO saying that Trump's campaign returned to overt and dog-whistle racist appeals as a central element of their message isn't the same as saying that Trump is a racist. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It still directly states that Trump's campaigning methods are racist in Wikipedia's own voice. this is a matter of opionion more than direct fact as viewpoints on this differ widely and in IMO the sentence should reflect this. Transcendent Presence (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Although it uses the term "racist appeals," the source is not calling Trump or his methods racist, but saying that his campaign appealed to people's racist attitudes. While the meaning is clear in the article, the direct quote without context is not. I would therefore prefer "appeals to racism" as an unambiguous and accurate reflection of the source. Also, if Trump or anyone else is called a racist in a reliable source, we should treat it as an opinion and provide in-text citation, per Contentious labels. TFD (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable position and the most appropriate way to adress the issue I would be in favour of this alteration Transcendent Presence (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Judiciary

Valjean, RE your question: Looks like I didn't use the latest version prior to the edit I manually reverted. Thanks for catching it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Trump's personal involvement

@Chrisahn: Your edits here and here and all the ones in between: Your edit summary for the first one referred to a recent discussion. Which one was that? I haven't looked at the sources for your edits yet, but in the case of the edit Specifico reverted the argument that Trump wasn't personally involved in the protests is a little odd, other than being the subject of everyone's wrath. Were you expecting him to join the protesters or send the troops (early days, we had to wait until 2020 for that one)? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC) Ah, tit for tat? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Heartily agree. Some of the edits "could not be undone" and I don't have the time to disentangle the damage. For example with respect to the Saudi's, the cut omitted content that further contextualizes Trump's special relationship and catering to MBS there. If that particular text is to be cut it should be replaced with summary text that explicitly states RS characterizations of this very surprising and widely criticized treatment of the Saudis by Mr. Trump. The good news is that such a summary would enable further cuts to detail that was accumulated in real time and certainly can be revisited. SPECIFICO talk 13:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: SPECIFICO wrote: "Editors of this page have for years, repeatedly, focused it on Trump personally, not his presidency, his businesses, his TV and wrestling ventures -- except as details relate to his personal involvement in such details." Sounds like a reasonable criterion to limit the scope of this biographical article. Of course, we have to apply it consistently. That means we can't include events that were rather general reactions to something he did or said, e.g. the protests. He wasn't personally involved in them. They belong in the presidency article, but not here. — Chrisahn (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Not at all. Much of what these people were saying was that they found him personally repugnant and unfit for public display, let alone high office. SPECIFICO talk 13:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

What is Trump's personal involvement with the protests? "Someone said something about him" is not personal involvement. (By the way, I find Trump repugnant as well. But our opinions don't matter when we're editing Wikipedia.) — Chrisahn (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Please provide evidence that Trump was personally involved in the Taliban peace talks. Otherwise, we'll have to delete them from this article. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

He was going to bbq a goat with them at Camp David until the press caught wind of it and the miltiary and the public outcry canceled the visit. SPECIFICO talk 14:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

He cancelled the one meeting he was supposed to have. OK, so he was not personally involved. Thanks. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Please read press and expert foreign policy and military comment on the shock and horror of Trump autonomously inviting the Taliban to Camp David. The alarm and outrage was so immediate and extreme that he was forced to cancel at the last minute, after concealing the plan from relevant officials. SPECIFICO talk 13:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Donald Trump and anti-Semitism

Hey all! I know this is contentious, but it looks like Donald Trump has gotten some coverage for anti-Semitism [7][8][9]. I suggest we add the following sentence towards the end of the racial views section: "Jewish groups have criticized Donald Trump for invoking anti-Semitic stereotypes that American Jews overvalue money and unconditionally support Israel." Benevolent human (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems valid to me.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, racial views is imperfect title but is the best location in the articles current scheme. I would hesitate to say that it's Jewish groups, because there's been widespread condemnation of this. Also, the stereotypes are more extensive, about controlling global finance and the like. Narrow miss on blood libel, however. Not sure Qanon connects it to the Jews, but I could be out of date on this. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

If those are the specific references you're using, you might want to be clear that it was four Jewish groups. Five, technically, if you count praise as criticism. But four against. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

This is worth a mention. I seem to also remember reading an article (I forget the outlet, but I'm sure I could find it) where it discussed Trump stereotyping Jews, based partly on past public statements, but especially on what long-time friends and associates called "positive prejudice", or something of the sort. Basically, the typical tropes that they're naturally "good with money" and "make good lawyers", but also being slightly dismissive of them outside of these contexts. As I said, these were friends and close associates that were basically saying this was accurate, directly, but as a defense: that it showed he wasn't overtly anti-Semitic, because he held these positive views of Jewish people, even if they were basic pedestrian stereotypes. I'm inclined to think it was in the Atlantic? If the rest is mentioned, I can see this article being a counterbalance (of sorts), and something that's likely due. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Trump, MBS, Yemen

We mention Trump's first support for the Saudis in Yemen, but not his 2019 doubling down. Here are a few sources. A sentence or two seems appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 19:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Chrisahn, Soibangla, SPECIFICO about the current wording of the Saudi Arabia paragraph. "Limited" is based on this sentence in Reuters’ March 2, 2018, article: Mattis said the U.S. assistance, which includes limited intelligence support and refueling of coalition jets, was ultimately aimed at bringing Yemen’s war toward a negotiated resolution. I read "which includes" to mean that there is additional support, i.e., the arms sales by the U.S.—and numerous other countries—to Saudi Arabia since the invasion of Yemen in 2015. During the Trump era, that’s the $110 billion "deal" announced in March 2017—I don’t know whether the sales rushed through in late 2020 were part of that. "Supported" is supported by all sources, "actively supported" is kind of OpEd-ish IMO. I think we also should mention that Trump chose to ignore U.S. intelligence reports indicating that bin Salman approved/authorized the killing of Khashoggi. Thoughts? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not married to "limited", but "active support" gives a wrong impression. AP wrote: "[Trump] acknowledged that the U.S. has provided limited support to the coalition, including intelligence sharing, logistics support, and — until recently — in-flight refueling of non-U.S. aircraft." This and other sources, e.g. sound like "limited" may have been copied from White House or Trump memos, so we might as well drop it (WP:PRIMARY). The "logistical and intelligence" part is important though, because otherwise readers might assume that US military is directly involved, which is not the case.

By the way, it looks like the Trump administration simply continued what the Obama administration had started. See Barack Obama#Foreign policy: "In March 2015, Obama declared that he had authorized U.S. forces to provide logistical and intelligence support to the Saudis in their military intervention in Yemen [...]. In 2016, the Obama administration proposed a series of arms deals with Saudi Arabia worth $115 billion." That's the $110 billion deal signed by Trump. I'll just leave these sources here:

I think Trump's stance towards the Khashoggi murder isn't relevant enough to mention it in the article. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's been widely cited as abhorrent and a departure from any precedent in US foreign policy. And Trump's dozens of public equivocatioins on the murder of a US journalist drew ongoing shock and condemnation, similar to his endorsement of Putin's denial of DNC hacking and his precipitous withdrawal attempts RE: Afghanistan and northern Syria. SPECIFICO talk 16:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: Please read WP:TPG. It is important not to edit your talk page comments after another editor has responded to them. Thanks. As to your stance: Much changed between the initial appropriation and Trump's siding with the murderous MBS in the face of worldwide horror. No similarity despite the budget authorization being in place. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Please provide sources for your claims. (When I edited my comment, I simply replaced a question by a statement and added a source.) — Chrisahn (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

the Trump administration simply continued what the Obama administration had started It's a big black mark on Obama's record, IMO, but Trump continued after withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal (i.e., it was no longer necessary to assure the Gulf states that the U.S. wasn't taking Iran's side against them) and at a time when Saudi war crimes in Yemen were well documented. Also, by late 2016, Obama had halted sale of precision-guided munitions because of problems with Saudi targeting. I don't remember what the sources say about the kinds of weapons included in Trump's deal, don't have the time today to check. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

References

DT's blog: 'From the Desk of Donald Trump'

DT's blog was launched with something of a Trumpesque fanfare in early May 2021. Today, 2nd June 2021, after one month it was closed down. Various reports say that it had very low readership for such a well known celebrity and he was fed up with it being mocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.43.30 (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I saw no Trumpesque fanfare around its launch. The blog is too insignificant to mention here, though it may be of use on Social media use by Donald Trump. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Yesterday, I changed the url to the blog which can still be reached at www.donaldtrump.com/news (instead of /desk). It was deleted in this edit. I don't care whether the link stays or goes, and my hands are bound by 3RR anyway. Headline in WaPo: Trump ends blog after 29 days, infuriated by measly readership - Upset that it was being mocked for low traffic, Trump ordered his team Tuesday to put the blog out of its misery. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I would tend to agree its a bit trivial.Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

telling associates he believed he would be reinstated

This content was reverted[10] by Berchanhimez on the assertion it was inadequately sourced. I intend to restore the content with these sources[11][12][13][14] tomorrow unless someone else does it first or a persuasive argument can be made here that it should be excluded for other reasons. soibangla (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

not really sure what the point would be.Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Charles C. W. Cooke of cited National Review appears to see the point:

The scale of Trump’s delusion is quite startling. This is not merely an eccentric interpretation of the facts or an interesting foible, nor is it an irrelevant example of anguished post-presidency chatter. It is a rejection of reality, a rejection of law, and, ultimately, a rejection of the entire system of American government.

soibangla (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Then wp:blp comes into play, and for a clinical diagnose we would need MEDERS complaint sources, not a journalists opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I cited Cooke here on Talk to address your response, but I cite it as an article source because he also wrote:

I can attest, from speaking to an array of different sources, that Donald Trump does indeed believe quite genuinely that he — along with former senators David Perdue and Martha McSally — will be “reinstated” to office this summer after “audits” of the 2020 elections in Arizona, Georgia, and a handful of other states have been completed.

soibangla (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

What does this have to do with medical diagnosis? It's just his belief, similar to Biden believes child care is infrastructure. I don't see anyone proposing text that calls it demented in either case, SPECIFICO talk 23:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Really seems like a due weight issue. In the end who cares? In the extremely unlikely event anything actually happens, either way, then we can revisit. Until then I would say it has no value to the article. PackMecEng (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I will resist the temptation to make a snarky remark about the "extremely unlikely event anything actually happens." soibangla (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Cool! PackMecEng (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

(ec)I agree with Pack, in that it may be a WEIGHT issue, but it is definitely not ill-sourced opinion as the revert edit-summary claims. Further, I don't see a BLP issue with a widely reported fact concerning possibly the most public figure on the planet. It didn't say he eats babies or starts forest fires. SPECIFICO talk 18:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Noting that I reinstated this before looking at the talk page and seeing this thread. SPECIFICO talk 18:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The sources flat out don’t support “will be” reinstated. His actual statement was “could be”, not will be, and that’s what’s reflected in the reliable sources. I agree that it’s also likely not due weight for this article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

(ec)::Be, we should go with the multiple RS references Soibangla has provided. They don't support "could be". SPECIFICO talk 18:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The edit says "he believed he would be reinstated," but I'm happy to go with "expects"[15], though Cooke wrote "Trump does indeed believe quite genuinely..."[16] soibangla (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

No, we absolutely cannot cite the tweet from the reporter in lieu of the (presumably) fact-checked actual article (such as I linked in the edit summary). We cannot say "expects" to be anything unless we clarify with "could be". That is the operative word, the actual NYT article makes sure to include that, and we cannot use extremely more biased sources to use other language just because it fits Soibangla and SPECIFICO's narrative of trying to make Trump look like a lunatic (which is a BLP violation, by the way - using extremely biased sources to say something that less biased sources do not claim is the truth). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not suggesting the tweet be cited. I merely noted it here because it got the whole story started, which the RS I provide clearly show. The operative word here is believed and that has been reported by multiple RS. soibangla (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

No, the operative words you included that lead to my revert are "would be reinstated". This is adamantly not what the most reliable source out of all of them says. This source (the NYT itself, not the one reporter's tweet) also happens to be the original "RS reporter" of the information. And they don't say that. They say specifically, to quote their article (linked here): has told several people he believes he could be “reinstated” to the White House this August. That does not support the text "would be". Period. Could and would are very different - one implies certainty, one implies possibility. The fact that you made this edit without seeing that glaring discrepancy, and the fact that SPECIFICO is blindly supporting the edit without recognizing this blatant misrepresentation of the reliable source, highly suggest that you should take a step back and re-evaluate whether personal opinion is clouding your judgement on this topic. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

You may have been thinking the operative words you included that lead to my revert but that's not what you said in your edit summary, which is why I have challenged your rationale, which you are now changing. Believed is most certainly the operative word. soibangla (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

take a step back and re-evaluate whether personal opinion is clouding your judgement Right back atcha. soibangla (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Saying what amounts to "this person is crazy" (or "this person said something crazy") is a WP:REDFLAG claim that wasn't supported by the source you included. Maybe you misread my edit summary, but clearly not everyone did. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

My edit does not say what amounts to "this person is crazy". My edit says what he is reported by multiple RS to believe. soibangla (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

It says what heavily biased sources report him to believe, and you ignored the actual source of the information which is much more reserved. That's called "cherry-picking" to fit your desire to make him look as crazy as possible by using the worst language you think you have a chance at making "stick" in the article, and is similar to previous things you've done in this topic area. I'll AGF and assume that you're just not doing your due diligence on information that is a WP:REDFLAG claim (which requires comparing all available sources, trying to find the best, and only then including information) - I encourage you to do that in the future rather than just adding something you think is "verifiable" when in reality you're using heavily biased sources to push a POV into this article. We cite the original source here or nothing - we don't enable POVPUSHING by using laundered, biased sources. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

It says what heavily biased sources report him to believe Such as National Review? Ha! I finally found a way to use a conservative outlet as a source and someone has a problem with it. Just can't make this up. soibangla (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Bias goes so much deeper than "political leaning in general". Since even before he was the nominee for the GOP, that magazine has been extremely anti-Trump - so regardless of their political leaning in general, they are a heavily biased source. Again, the fact that you cannot recognize that shows that you are not following due diligence in researching REDFLAG claims, and have no business editing REDFLAG claims if you don't start doing so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I have cited multiple sources deemed reliable, regardless of what you might think of them. take a step back and re-evaluate whether personal opinion is clouding your judgement soibangla (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

REDFLAG claims require exceptional sources. Not just reliable ones. Even otherwise reliable sources get very murky when discussing something they have an obvious (and in the case of National Review an admitted) bias towards/against something. You did not provide exceptional sources for your exceptional claim. Your editing is the problem here - not mine. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Something is not REDFLAG simply because you assert it is. soibangla (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

If you can't see how what you added is a REDFLAG claim (hint: anything that says "person X believes something that's considered a conspiracy theory" is always a REDFLAG claim), then you have no business editing even potentially controversial information about living people. I encourage you to review this with a fresh head - right now you're digging a hole that shows you have not just a lack of understanding for, but a complete disregard for our most important policies on Wikipedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Your WP:ASPERSIONS are duly noted. soibangla (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Be, REDFLAG is not applicable to the text in question. Please read it again with care and parse what it says.. SPECIFICO talk 23:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

clearly not everyone did. I don't see anyone here defending your reversion on the basis of your edit summary. soibangla (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Unless I've missed something we have RS saying that Trump told people privately that he (+Perdue+Loeffler+others) will be reinstated by August. If and when he does so publicly (the sources also said that his staff (?—what are his handlers called these days) is trying to keep him from doing so) and RS report it, we should mention it. Until then, it's WO:NOTNEWS, IMO. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

  You're missing something. We have biased RS saying that he said "will be", and we have more neutral (and more reliable in general) RS saying he said "could be" reinstated. That distinction is important, and I think that an accurate depiction may merit inclusion. However there's also the due weight concerns - not everything he says is due weight to include at all. The reason I reverted originally is because Soibangla cherry-picked obviously and extremely biased sources to support a REDFLAG claim that is explicitly not supported by more mainstream sources such as the NYT (the ultimate source of the information to begin with). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Berchanhimez said: Soibangla cherry-picked obviously and extremely biased sources. Minutes ago I advised you are casting aspersions upon me, and now are intensifying it. Don't go this way. soibangla (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

You wrote obviously and extremely biased sources which was actually one source, WaPo, which is green per WP:RSP, with the only qualification being blog posts, which this was not, but rather by a prominent journalist, Philip Bump, not some hack. It was labeled "analysis," but it was not an opinion as you asserted in your edit summary to justify reversion, and if anyone thinks "analysis" from a prominent reliable source should be excluded they need to litigate that at WP:RSN to change policy, not attempt to litigate it selectively in a specific case when it suits them. You alone assert WaPo is less neutral and less reliable than other RS, here at least. You say "will" is not supported by more mainstream sources, but this[17] says "will," as does this.[18]. And the the ultimate source of the information to begin with said "expects he will get reinstated."[19], followed by a conservative publication reporting based on "speaking to an array of different sources, that Donald Trump does indeed believe quite genuinely that he — along with former senators David Perdue and Martha McSally — will be “reinstated.”[20] Believes. Will. My edit said: By June 2021, Trump was telling associates he believed he would be reinstated as president by August. Those who have been paying close attention know that in recent days, Trump loyalists/influencers Sidney Powell and Mike Lindell have made similar assertions in public, the latter saying he's gonna get SCOTUS to do it by August, and Mike Flynn appeared to express support among the QAnon crowd for a military coup to get it done. Perhaps we can allude to those things in the edit to establish it is noteworthy. soibangla (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

An editor who reverts material sourced to the Washington Post, a rock-solid reliable source in this project, is by definition disruptive. We can certainly have a discussion on due vs. undue, but a knee-jerk "I don't like the Washington Post" should earn a quick disinvite from the American Politics topic area, IMO. Zaathras (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

If we include this we need to report it correctly. The original source for example said, "the New York Times’s Maggie Haberman reports that Trump thinks he will somehow be reinstated as president by August." When the source provides a qualification such as "according to X," then we have to include that qualification. We must not report things as more certain than the sources we use.

Assuming Trump said he would be reinstated, we don't know if he actually believes that. Trump constantly says outrageous things and also contradicts himself. We could fill dozens of articles with outrageous things he said. What we include however depends on the degree of coverage. Maybe we could have a spin-off article about Trump in Elba.

TFD (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I think there is enough coverage and we've got good sources, plus Maggie Haberman is a White House correspondent for The New York Times with a long background and I don't think she is one to be blabbing stuff that is not factual. As for what Trump really thinks?--it's pretty scary to think he just actually believes it because then things are worse than I even thought....Gandydancer (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with reporting it without attributing it to one reporter. But we must report the actual fact-checked NYT article - not biased failed reproductions of it (ex: WaPo, etc), and not her tweet. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 12:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The continued harping about the Washington Post, a solid reliable source for this project, is a complete non-argument. Zaathras (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

It actually is - there is no "God source" on Wikipedia - sources are evaluated against other sources, and when they are incorrect (as in this case) in copying original reporting from elsewhere, we are encouraged to use the source of the information as opposed to the less accurate one. Furthermore, bias does not affect reliability in general, but it certainly does affect reliability on specific topics or in specific articles. Your attempt to dismiss my arguments without any counter argument is actually not very helpful to get it included. But again, I'm fine with the NYT being cited and "could" being used if people think it's due weight - if people wish strongly to use incorrect sources as opposed to less-biased and the actual sources, an RfC should be held. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and an "analysis" article by one person is akin to an opinion article in the Washington Post - it's just written by someone who works for them. It's no different than articles by "The Editorial Board" in the NYT - they're editorials/opinions written by staff and as such are given a different name. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• I support keeping the content. Due weight argument is irrelevant because not everything Trump did or said is covered by many reliable sources. Also, I prefer neutral wording in according to neutral sources. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• I as well believe the content, sourced to the Washington Post, should be restored. Zaathras (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Gandydancer, the article in The Week sources Haberman's statement to a tweet, not an actual fact-checked article in the New York Times.[21] "Twitter should never be used for third-party claims related to living persons," per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. So we cannot use the tweet and cannot misrepresent the sources we use. Unless they verify her tory, It cannot be treated as fact since it is not treated as fact in any reliable sources. Also, since Trump is very newsworthy, you need more than a few articles to establish noteworthiness. Haberman's tweet has not received the same degree of coverage as for example Trump's relations with Putin or Kim Jong un, or moving the embassy to Jerusalem or having a TV show. If we put in everything about Trump that was reliably sourced, this article would run into thousands of pages. TFD (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

But we're not using the tweet as a source. Including WaPo, five RS are being proposed that report on what Haberman reported, via whatever medium, and she's one of the leading experts on Trump, with unrivaled access to his associates. She was writing about Trump before 2015. It has not been retracted/corrected. And Cooke independently confirmed it. soibangla (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

One of those sources (an article in the Week) says, "the New York Times’s Maggie Haberman reports that Trump thinks he will somehow be reinstated as president by August." It does not say "Trump thinks he will somehow be reinstated as president by August." You can't say that because it reports a tweet by a respected journalist that the original information is reliable, since tweets are not considered rs.

Also, per policy, statements by journalists are not reliable sources unless they are published in a forum with editorial oversight.

TFD (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like in this case and to my surprise, you may not have read the citations, TFD. SPECIFICO talk 14:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Does National Review qualify as a forum with editorial oversight? soibangla (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I read the first citation provided and in fact quoted it. I don't see why I should have to read through multiple citations just in case one of them supports what you want to include. Tell me which if any of them do and I will read it and get back to you. Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, there is "no consensus" on the reliability of the National Review. TFD (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why I should have to read through multiple citations. Well OK then. soibangla (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I read the National Review article. As I said, there is no consensus on the magazine's reliability, and also since it is an opinion piece it is not a reliable source anyway. I'll read the other sources and get back to you. Please don't add multiple additional sources that you have not read and ask me to read them too. TFD (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

You have no basis to say add multiple additional sources that you have not read and ask me to read them too. You did, however, acknowledge that you have been discussing this matter without reading the cites provided in the opening edit. soibangla (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

OK I read them all. The AP article says, "And Trump has gone a step further recently by giving credence to a bizarre conspiracy theory that he could somehow be reinstated into the presidency in according to a longtime Trump ally who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations." The Independent article uses the terms reportedly and according to the conservative National Review magazine. So basically they use similar phrasing to the Week. It's not rocket science. If reliable sources say Trump said something, we say Trump said something. If they say "according to so-and-so," Trump said something, we say "according to so-and-so," Trump said something. We cannot misrepresent sources. TFD (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

soibangla, Wikipedia policy, guidelines and explanatory supplements aside, neither you nor I would trust anything we read in the National Review without checking it against a reliable source. I mean Ann Coulter was one of their editors! TFD (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

"Opinion" or analysis pieces by notable experts or qualified journalists in RS publications are RS as to facts stated therein. That does not mean that we convey their opinions or analysis as fact, but these publications and these experts are trusted sources for accurate citation of facts. You will not see Sean Spicer or Kellyanne Conway reciting alternative facts in a WaPo or NYT or National Review article, because these publications exercise editorial oversight as to statements of fact, even when they publish diverse and conflicting statements of opinion. Let's wrap this up. Soibangla, what is the current proposal for article text, taking account of any legitimate objections that may have been raised? SPECIFICO talk 14:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Wrong. News organizations says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Articles by reporters are only reliable sources when they are published as news articles in reliable sources. Furthermore, there is a specific ban on using tweets as reliable sources, whoever the author is. TFD (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Strawlady argument. And so is Ann Coulter. The proposed references are news articles in various RS, not the opinon piece. Soibangla will draft our article text according to the numerous RS cited here. SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. Which argument is stawperson and why? Wikipedia editors have no consensus on the reliability of National Review and opinion pieces published anywhere are not reliable sources, according to policy. Are you actually telling me that in your opinion the National Review is reliable? Just say it and make my day. TFD (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Nobody wants to cite twitter. The source is a NYT news article, thus qualifying your concern as strawwoman. SPECIFICO talk 19:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

With or without attribution, it was just a brief blip on the radar and not noteworthy enough to put in his biography. This is the guy who does not know how things work in the real world. He thought that you need ID to buy groceries, he doesn't know that First Amendment freedom of speech refers to the government censoring citizens and not to his contract violation squabbles with Twitter and Facebook, etc. Yesterday at the GOP convention in North Carolina he bored his GOP audience with the same old whine about the crime of the century, sans mention of reinstatement (NYT, CNN). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, he's been warned with considerable urgency, and from several of his trusted advisors, not to mention the reinstatement thing. Bobbing and weaving is good PR and good politics -- a lesson he learned, and a skill he's honed, over the years. I give him credit for adjusting his message and showcasing Lara to tilt the headlines coming from the NC appearance. SPECIFICO talk 15:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The speech was subpar. He sounded as though he might nod off any second numerous times, there wasn't a whole lot of the usual raucous audience response except after the usual dog whistles about China, immigrants, etc, exactly like CNN described it. He has the pillow rally coming up next weekend, let's wait and see whether he mentions reinstatement. We have two sources citing a longtime ally (AP) and an array of different sources (NR), and Haberman's tweet and the NYT article on the NC GOP convention speech citing "several people." The Week reports Haberman's tweet, the Independent and Bump at WaPo cite NR. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC) I don't doubt the sources but it's citizen Trump, venting. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Why are we discussing a twit when Maggie wrote a NYT news article about it and other RS reported the news. I don't think we should speculate as to whether or why he's dialed it back for public media management. As I said, we have reports he was heavily advised to do so by his advisors. SPECIFICO talk 17:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't see this discussion, but I have trimmed the material back by about 50%, as it contained way too much detail. I do think a mention of this belongs in the Post-presidency section, but just a sentence or two, and as simple reporting without any analysis. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I haven't seen a NYT news article by Haberman, just a tweet. Do you have a reference? TFD (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

This is why I am so concerned about you amigo.[22] Hā'-ber-man. SPECIFICO talk 20:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. This isn't twitter, it's Wikipedia. AFAIK, no one has presented that source in this discussion, is not mentioned in any of the sources provided and in fact it was published yesterday (Jun. 6), the day after this discussion thread began. The NYT article, by Annie Karni and Maggie Haberman, is worded in a similar way to all the other reliable sources: "Mr. Trump...has told several people he believes he could be “reinstated” to the White House this August, according to three people familiar with his remarks." TFD (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I've never been worried about your good faith. I doubt anyone else has either. SPECIFICO talk 21:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

It was probably hidden in one of my comments - I put it in the edit summary of my initial reversion but I should've made it more prominent when commenting here. I agree with you that it's all "anonymously attributed" - and we should replicate that in the article if we're going to use sources - but we should also favor "could" over "will/would" because that is closer to the original source. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Well let's hope SPECFICO isn't concerned about you. I checked through the discussions and could not find it. I prefer the NYT article wording over the tweet because it was published in a reliable source and also written after the tweet by the same author. Of course it loses its zing. If someone who bought a lottery ticket says they could win $500 million it would be accurate, if they said they would win it, it would almost certainly be false. TFD (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Seriously? Look, if Irish talk radio is having the likes of Cal Thomas on, talking about Trump thinking he's going to be re-inaugurated as President in August, (as it was last Tuesday, 1 June, if I'm not mistaken on the day), then it's news, and due. As to his competence, no, we may not have MEDRES-worthy sources, but we do have the likes of this. Oh, my. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thomas who was VP of the Moral Majority, accused Obama of treating Israel like an enemy, wants to stop mosques being built and hates gays? If that's who you are listening too maybe you should talk to someone. The Trump put his pants on backwards hoax was debunked within minutes and if you believed it you are seriously gullible. {Try putting your pants on backwards and see it isn't easy.) Anyway this is supposed to be an encyclopedic article, not an SNL skit. TFD (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Pants: It was a joke based on President Skroobs in Spaceballs—meh, Galaxy Quest is much better. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC) In case anyone missed the info where the missing fly went: to 2020 Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Not a hoax -- which implies an attempt to fool people -- but a mistake. I'm hoping that the Daily Mail or other British tabloid does a story about the debunking with the headline, "That Donald Trump story? It was PANTS". --Calton | Talk 15:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Joke, not hoax, with possibly some photoshopping before retweet, misunderstood by tabloids (or maybe intentionally misunderstood). The source didn't have the best resolution to start with, but making it fuzzier and the colors more garish shouldn't have fooled anyone into thinking it was anything other than trolling Trump. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead/Impeachment and Ukraine investigation sentence

The lead presently has the phrasing, The House of Representatives impeached Trump on December 18, 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress after he solicited Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. The Senate acquitted him of both charges on February 5, 2020. which is confusing, since it puts the cart before the horse (and does not indicate why Biden was the target) (and interrupts the impeachment from the Senate acquittal). Better language would be After Trump solicited Ukraine to investigate his political rival Joe Biden, the House of Representatives impeached Trump on December 18, 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress . The Senate acquitted him of both charges on February 5, 2020. (The paragraph requests Talk before changing the language.) The suggested change also makes for a clearer transition from the previous sentences. Bdushaw (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The lead

Frustratingly, I see that once again the lead of this article has been changed to differ it from all the other US presidents intros. I'm of course speaking of the 'bleeping' linkage of "45th president of the United States" to Presidency of Donald Trump. Hopefully, this inconsistency will eventually be overturned. GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree it should be linked to the office as opposed to his presidency article. We have had a few discussions about it. This one seemed to be in favour of the office [23] (there have also been other iirc). But this recent, general one [24] resulted in it being the presidency article, even though that discussion was hardly about links instead about the lead sentence content, briefly discussed here [25]. We should just probably start a RfC to clean this up again.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 02:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, an RFC is required. GoodDay (talk) 02:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Also found this discussion which led to presidency article being moved out of lead sentence [26].  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 02:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

As I said in my revert, I'm not necessarily opposed. I reverted strictly based on the edit notice. I'm usually one for consistency, but I also don't see what the piped link hurts either, especially when the general Presidency article is linked all over the place. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The intro is out-of-sync with the other US presidents intros. GoodDay (talk) 03:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

To reiterate, I'm not opposed to your edit suggestion. Regularity is important. But we should also take into consideration that Trump is an irregular president. The point of links are to inform the reader, and expose them to things that they might be interested in. The piped link does this, as the only other time (if I recall) that this is linked is about halfway through the article. The general Presidency article is linked a couple of time elsewhere. I understand both sides of the "argument", such as it is. I'm not opposed though, and if we move toward consistency in the prose (per other articles), I still think that this should still be linked somewhere in the introduction. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned above, an RFC is required. GoodDay (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

RFC (lead sentence link)

How should we handle links within the lead sentence in regards to the "45th president of the United States" section?

Option A: Link to President of the United States article, ... who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.

Option B Link to Presidency of Donald Trump article, ... who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.

Also if you are wondering why the link selections slightly differ in regards to the "45th" part (not linked in A, but is in B) it is becasue in the two revisions that have gone back and forth (see previous disscussions linked above) that is way they have been handled.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 04:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Survey (lead sentence link)

• A per the precedent. I would expect "45th POTUS" to link to Trump's biography, which would make no sense. ~ HAL333 04:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• B. Simply because some people keep saying that the reason we have to include every minute detail about his presidency in this article (hint: 4 years of his life is longer than literally the entire rest of the article by a very decent margin). We don't. We have an article for that. And linking to it early on would help people find that information whenever people start respecting WP:ARTICLESIZE here. But that's a whole other topic - I still think that because most people searching "Donald Trump" are likely looking for information on his presidency, that it should be presented high up in the article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• B, per the MOS:SPECIFICLINK guideline. The Trump presidency article is more specific and much more likely to be useful to readers than the article on the presidency as a whole. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (lead sentence link)

@GoodDay and Symmachus Auxiliarus: RfC started above.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 04:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Ping users involved in this discussion [27] @Sdkb, Mandruss, ONUnicorn, and Space4Time3Continuum2x:. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 04:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Ping users involved in this discussion [28] @Scjessey, May His Shadow Fall Upon You, Emir of Wikipedia, and Steverci:. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 04:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Ping users involved in this discussion [29]@SPECIFICO, PyroFloe, Levivich, ValarianB, ChipotleHater, Jonmaxras, Qexigator, Rreagan007, Throast, MelanieN, Thanoscar21, Onetwothreeip, Jack Upland, Giraffer, Anon0098, Berchanhimez, Chrisahn, Hazelforest, Neutrality, Felix558, AleatoryPonderings, Mgasparin, ProcrastinatingReader, Starship.paint, Govindaharihari, Moxy, Throast, SRD625, Thanoscar21, Hijiri88, Khajidha, Bdushaw, Ewulp, GreenFrogsGoRibbit, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, PyroFloe, Kolya Butternut, and DarthBotto:. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 04:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)