Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:30, 15 December 2020

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Want to add new information about Donald Trump? Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example: Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2025 Q1) List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump (2025) Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration Business career of Donald Trump Donald Trump on social media Trump–Ukraine scandal Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump ... or dozens of other places, as listed in {{Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Business Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Donald Trump Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York City High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American / Political parties High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Television / Presidential elections / Presidents / Government Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance). Template:WP1.0 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Television Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:Vital article

Donald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result June 2, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed February 12, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed September 18, 2016 Good article nominee Not listed May 25, 2017 Good article nominee Not listed December 2, 2018 Good article nominee Not listed July 15, 2019 Good article nominee Not listed August 31, 2019 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 29, 2020 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Former good article nominee

Other talk page banners

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019. This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 15 times. The weeks in which this happened: December 6 to 12, 2015 January 31 to February 6, 2016 February 21 to 27, 2016 March 13 to 19, 2016 October 9 to 15, 2016 October 16 to 22, 2016 November 6 to 12, 2016 November 13 to 19, 2016 January 15 to 21, 2017 January 22 to 28, 2017 November 1 to 7, 2020 November 8 to 14, 2020 November 15 to 21, 2020 November 22 to 28, 2020 November 29 to December 5, 2020 This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. Section sizes Section size for Donald Trump (92 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 9,407 9,407 Early life and education 3,089 3,089 Business career 149 35,384 Real estate 4,555 15,956 Manhattan and Chicago developments 6,170 6,170 Atlantic City casinos 3,610 3,610 Clubs 1,621 1,621 Licensing the Trump name 1,364 1,364 Side ventures 7,220 7,220 Foundation 5,025 5,025 Legal affairs and bankruptcies 2,315 2,315 Wealth 3,355 3,355 Media career 3,445 5,107 The Apprentice and The Celebrity Apprentice 1,662 1,662 Early political aspirations 4,444 4,444 2016 presidential election 18,734 18,734 First presidency (2017–2021) 1,538 175,191 First presidency early actions 1,834 1,834 Conflicts of interest 3,372 3,372 Domestic policy 20,094 20,094 Race relations 6,410 6,410 Pardons and commutations 2,574 2,574 Immigration 3,112 20,429 Travel ban 4,347 4,347 Family separation at the border 6,273 6,273 Mexico–United States border wall and government shutdown 6,697 6,697 Foreign policy 2,859 35,970 Trade 2,517 2,517 Russia 4,226 4,226 East Asia 21 10,653 China, Hong Kong, Taiwan 4,914 4,914 North Korea 5,718 5,718 Middle East 23 15,715 Afghanistan 3,042 3,042 Israel 2,637 2,637 Saudi Arabia 2,229 2,229 Syria 3,797 3,797 Iran 3,987 3,987 Personnel 8,705 8,705 Judiciary 4,174 4,174 COVID-19 pandemic 291 30,415 Initial response 7,145 7,145 White House Coronavirus Task Force 4,747 4,747 World Health Organization 2,673 2,673 Pressure to abandon pandemic mitigation measures 7,799 7,799 Political pressure on health agencies 2,690 2,690 Outbreak at the White House 2,667 2,667 Effects on the 2020 presidential campaign 2,403 2,403 Investigations 1,079 26,089 Financial 3,111 3,111 Russian election interference 6,491 6,491 FBI Crossfire Hurricane and 2017 counterintelligence investigations 2,573 2,573 Mueller investigation 12,835 12,835 First impeachment 10,202 10,202 Second impeachment 3,385 3,385 2020 presidential election 34 23,357 Loss to Biden 6,907 15,674 Rejection of results 8,767 8,767 January 6 Capitol attack 7,649 7,649 Between presidencies (2021–2025) 5,214 25,245 Legal issues 21 20,031 Classified documents 4,973 4,973 2020 election 5,415 5,415 2016 campaign fraud case 3,167 3,167 Civil lawsuits and judgments 6,455 6,455 2024 presidential election 16,640 16,640 Second presidency (2025–present) 1,819 7,664 Second presidency early actions 3,883 3,883 Foreign policy 21 1,962 Trade 673 673 Middle East 20 1,268 Israel 1,248 1,248 Political practice and rhetoric 7,990 53,901 Racial and gender views 9,362 9,362 Link to violence and hate crimes 11,430 11,430 Conspiracy theories 3,317 3,317 Truthfulness 10,483 10,483 Social media 5,810 5,810 Relationship with the press 5,509 5,509 Personal life 18 6,946 Family 1,323 1,323 Health 3,697 3,697 Religion 1,908 1,908 Assessments 18 6,969 Public image 4,516 4,516 Scholarly rankings 2,435 2,435 Notes 136 136 References 30 30 Works cited 18 12,050 Books 3,216 3,216 Journals 8,816 8,816 External links 5,713 5,713 Total 410,007 410,007 Size of the article's wikitext over time. File size at the beginning of each month (UTC). File:Mandruss-Trump-graph-2020-12.png Health of Donald Trump was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 June 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Donald Trump. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Cuozzo, Steve (November 16, 2013). "Don't Trust Anything on Misplaced Pages". New York Post. Popper, Ben (July 22, 2015). "Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Misplaced Pages page". The Verge. Merrill, Jeremy (February 1, 2016). "On Misplaced Pages, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate". New York Times. Germ, Erik (May 28, 2016). "5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day". Cracked.com. Guo, Jeff (October 25, 2016). "Misplaced Pages is fixing one of the Internet's biggest flaws". The Washington Post. Alcantara, Chris (October 27, 2016). "The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates' Misplaced Pages pages". The Washington Post. Staff Writer (December 21, 2016). "Most-edited Misplaced Pages pages of 2016 revealed". BBC News. Gartenberg, Chaim (January 20, 2017). "Misplaced Pages editors can't decide if Trump is the president yet". The Verge. Wyrich, Andrew (June 5, 2017). "Someone is trying to get Trump's official portrait deleted from Misplaced Pages". The Daily Dot. Warren, Tom (22 November 2018). "Siri thinks Donald Trump is a penis". The Verge. Blumenthal, Eli (22 November 2018). "Misplaced Pages vandalizing causes Siri to show a lewd image when asked about Donald Trump". USA Today. Griffin, Andrew (23 November 2018). "Asking Siri for information about Donald Trump shows explicit image after Misplaced Pages edit". The Independent. Gander, Kashmira (23 November 2018). "Someone hacked Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages page, replaced photo with image of penis". Newsweek. Martin, Alan (26 November 2018). "The Trump penis Misplaced Pages war has kicked off again". The Inquirer. Brandom, Russell (December 3, 2018). "Misplaced Pages engages the 'nuclear option' after Trump penis hack". The Verge. Mak, Aaron (May 28, 2019). "Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages Entry Is a War Zone". Slate. Alex Pasternack (7 March 2020). "How Misplaced Pages's volunteers became the web's best weapon against misinformation". Fast Company. Retrieved 9 March 2020. Brian Flood (21 May 2020). "Misplaced Pages co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics". Fox News. Retrieved 22 May 2020. Dan Evon (11 November 2020). "Does Loser.com Redirect to Trump's Misplaced Pages Page?". Snopes. Retrieved 19 November 2020.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Highlighted open discussions

• None.

• v
• e

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
] item
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

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)

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 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)

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)

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 7 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)

22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Misplaced Pages'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)

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)

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 preclude bringing up for discussion whether to include media coverage relating to Trump's mental health and fitness. 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)

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) Amended after re-election: After his first term, scholars and historians ranked Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history. (November 2024)

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, optionally using its shortcut, WP:TRUMPRCB.
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" 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)

Proposed shortening of one sentence in the lead section

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Any thoughts on shortening a statement in the lead section as follows?

CURRENT VERSION: 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.

PROPOSED NEW VERSION: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics.

This would go down from 33 words to 22 words; it would preserve the most important bits (i.e., the level/rate of falsehoods is unprecedented) while omitting the unremarkable/obvious (the fact that these falsehoods have been documented - obviously they have been or else we wouldn't be making a reference to it in the Misplaced Pages bio). Neutrality 01:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

This seeks to alter #Current consensus #35.the fact that these falsehoods have been documented - obviously they have been or else we wouldn't be making a reference to it in the Misplaced Pages bio - I'd disagree with that statement. We might be saying that because reliable sources have said that without any documented fact-checking (or at least without anything remotely approaching the scale of what WaPo et al have done). We do that kind of thing all the time. We generally don't require sources to prove the truth of what they say. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• On the actual proposed rewording, do you support or oppose? It was not clear to me from your comment. Neutrality 13:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

That's because I'm waiting for other comments. I could even end up abstaining, and you'll know that by the absence of a bullet with my name on it. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I would like to see some discussion about the need for "the media have widely described" wrt NPOV. And whether the change is due to a change in situation or due to differences in policy interpretation. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Minor note..."his campaign" is singular, whereas he has had two campaigns now. (Though "false and misleading statements" doesn't begin to cover the situation...) Perhaps an opportunity to finally change "The statements have been..." to "The misinformation has been..." Bdushaw (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support the proposal with "campaign" changi7ng to "campaigns". I've long thought the extra stuff was really just there to deter edit warring, but as long as it is clearly spelled out in the body of the article I don't see the need for the longer version. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• That's a good catch. I just changed "campaign" to "campaigns" --Neutrality 13:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support. No need to tiptoe around the facts. François Robere (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support this improvement. It's a fact, so say it plainly. -- Valjean (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support This is definitely an improvement. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support The statement is accurate with no need to substantiate it. Gandydancer (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not seeing a need to overturn long standing and well participated consensus. PackMecEng (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  There is no need. I have no idea why this is even being discussed now. Efcharisto (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Economy is always good. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  Trump said this is the best economy ever. Question: That comma bothers me, but I see why the wording felt awkward without it. Is there a way to improve the sentence structure? SPECIFICO talk 17:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the comma seems awkward because the sentence ought to begin with "To a degree..." Bdushaw (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose so blithely replacing a consensus resulting from an RfC that was open for six weeks and ran to over 10,000 words. I wonder why the decision is so much easier this time. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC) (Eighteen days later, "blithely" no longer applies. Replaced with "oppose" at the bottom.) ―Mandruss ☎ 06:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  Note that discussion was closed in February 2019. François Robere (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  Why? Because in the 18 months since the press and numerous recent books have resolved any doubts they formerly may have held. SPECIFICO talk 20:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  Quoting Paul Krugmann: Of course, we’re learning that Donald Trump and those around him lie about everything and don’t care at all about endangering other people. But that’s more of a confirmation than a revelation — we basically already knew that, although we didn’t expect such graphic evidence. I wonder why the statement is restricted to the two official campaigns and the presidency. This is his general bio, not the "Presidency of" article, and he's been making documented false statements since at least the 80s. If we remove the fact-checkers, shouldn't we remove the campaigns and the presidency, as well, and simply say that he's made many false and misleading statements before and during his presidency (to be changed to "before, during and after his presidency" sooner or later?) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  The question is whether sources provide a statement to that effect. If you can provide enough sources that do, then we can. François Robere (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

One of the things the statement says implicitly is that he is lying while president. It is one thing to lie as a real estate developer or steak salesman, another to lie to the American public as president about such things as pandemic response. Perhaps the statement ought to more explicitly reflect this more consequential lying as president? I note that since the original statement was included in the lead, the section on Veracity was substantially expanded. Bdushaw (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• I would support total removal from the lead. I would also support changing the proposed removed wording into a footnote. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support the proposed change. Regarding the former RfC, I note that the process can be rather bizarre, and not altogether logical. The existing sentence has, essentially, "weasel words" in "the media have widely described" - we have had considerable recent discussion on the use of such words (and recalling my recent RfC where my attempt to use such words in a misguided attempt a compromise went over like a lead balloon), with the solid consensus that they should be avoided. Just state the thing; the problem in this case is that just stating the thing is to use Wikivoice to convey a clear flaw in Trump, which gets perceived badly, by some. The proposed wording states the facts clearly and economically. I suspect for better English the sentence ought to start with "To a degree unprecedented...", however. Bdushaw (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support: precision and concision are beautiful things soibangla (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment It might be worthwhile to try a different sentence structure, to avoid "to a degree..." Something like:

KICKING AROUND IDEAS VERSION: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, a tactic unprecedented in American politics.

Or using a semicolon to make a substantive statement about how unprecedented the misinformation is (corrosion of democracy?). Bdushaw (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

"Tactic" is interpretational, suggests planning. François Robere (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting it was unplanned? Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't like the alternative wording. I disagree that tactics imply "planning", because a tactic can be reactionary. Planning would imply a "strategy", but I would argue Trump's lies are habitual and are only occasionally part of some sort of overall strategy, otherwise we would have reliable sources to support the idea Trump's lies are part of a plan. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Trump has made more false and misleading statements than any other American president or presidential candidate in history. SPECIFICO talk 20:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  Do you have a WP:RS for that? Or is it alternative wording you are proposing? Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  Isn't that a paraphrase of the initial suggestion above? However, I think this is better: Trump has made more false and misleading statements than any other president or presidential candidate in American history SPECIFICO talk 17:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

KICKING AROUND IDEAS VERSION: The many false and misleading statements Trump has made during his campaigns and presidency are unprecedented in American politics. ??? Bdushaw (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

KICKING AROUND IDEAS VERSION: The degree of false or misleading statements made by Trump during his campaigns and presidency is unprecedented in American politics. ??? (need "or" rather than "and") Bdushaw (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality's wording is correct: "to a degree unprecedented". "All politicians lie", but Trump doesn't just lie more than others, he rarely tells the truth. He is in a different universe, where hardly a single molecule of truth exists. It's a foreign concept to him. -- Valjean (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom. {{u|Sdkb}}  05:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom, as well. I let the issue sit overnight, and the nom's original proposal seems best. I thought of changing "many" to "an extraordinary number" ("torrent"?), but we perhaps should not belabor the issue. But it should be "false OR misleading". Bdushaw (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, regretfully since I rarely disagree with Neutrality. Even as the sentence is we are constantly getting complaints about it at the talk page. If we change it to a simple assertion in Misplaced Pages's voice, without any explanation about what we are basing it on, we will be getting dozens of complaints a day, every day - and to some extent they will be justified. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  We should never be concerned about the number of unjustified complaints, but I don't necessarily disagree with to some extent they will be justified. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  I totally disagree with "let's go ahead and change the article in a way that will justifiably offend lots of readers, rather than keeping it as it is giving the basis for our statement." As you know, we hashed out the existing wording over a long period of time, and it has been stable for several years now if I recall correctly. The existing wording makes it clear: this is not something we are saying arbitrarily or because we are biased; we are saying it because is one of his most defining characteristics and there is overwhelming evidence for it. The proposed wording WOULD sound like we are saying it arbitrarily or because we are biased. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  The article is loaded with things that sound like we are biased – to readers who don't understand our policies (and some editors who don't understand our policies). The only question for me is how to best comply with those policies – and they are so vague, convoluted, and seemingly self-contradictory that there is no clear answer, leaving things wide open to editor bias. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  @MelanieN: - the existing wording has a problem though. It's not only the media which is saying that Trump's behaviour is unprecedented. It's academics. The mega-citation with the bundled references has six instances of that: (1) McGranahan is an academic source, (2) the NYT source refers to the historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, (3) the WaPo source refers to presidential historian Michael R. Beschloss, (4) the LA Times source refers to political scholar George Edwards, (5) the Toronto Star refers to presidential historian Douglas Brinkley, and (6) Skjeseth is also an academic sources. Given that academics believe that Trump's behaviour is unprecedented, I believe that Misplaced Pages can reflect it in wiki-voice. Does this change your view? starship.paint (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

  No, it doesn't. Thanks for spelling all this out, Starship, and I'm glad it is in the article text. However, it does not make "Trump is an unprecedented liar" into the factual equivalent of "the sky is blue". IMO we need to supply support, even in the lead, for such an inflammatory statement. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Factcheckers have confirmed that Trump has made more false and misleading statements than any other president in American history. -- Isn't that readily Verifiable? SPECIFICO talk 20:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, but, per policy, not all that is verifiable must be included in an article, let alone in its lead. If it's included, policy is sufficiently vague (flexible) that editors can reasonably disagree about how to word it. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  Huh? This discussion is about shortening it, not removing longstanding consensus content. Emir asked to be sure it's Verified. Yes it is. SPECIFICO talk 21:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  It helps to put replies in context, or use {{tq}}.Not to put too fine a point on it, but the fact-checkers (WaPo, Toronto Star, et al) have not actually compared Trump to his predecessors. I don't know that anybody has at the item level, as if that were even possible or useful given that presidents haven't always made multiple public statements per day that were immediately fact-checked. That wasn't even feasible until the widespread use of computers, roughly 1980s (or maybe advent of the internet, mid-1990s). Any "verifiability" we have that Trump is unprecedented is from sources other than the fact-checker databases, and we accept their analysis without actual proof. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  Then why do we currently say that in the article? I don't recall being involved in the initial consensus, because at the time I did not feel comfortable with what might have sounded partisan. However MelanieN without discounting your argument, I think it is the case that the press has been more willing, over the course of the most recent year, to emphasize Trump's false statements and even to call them lies. And we have a number of books in the past year that go into great detail on it. SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  Then why do we currently say that in the article? That's my point, which may have been unclear. I was responding only to your bolded comment, and the article does not currently say that Trump's "unprecedence" has been confirmed by fact-checkers. It says that the media have widely described Trump as unprecedented and the false and misleading statements have been documented by fact-checkers – not the same thing. You may be equating fact-checkers with reliable sources, and I'm not. That was not the intent of the phrase in the 2019 discussion, as I understood it. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  No, actually for the purpose of the current discussion, it is the same thing. Otherwise, you should have shared your concern at the top of the thread. Let's stay focused on the matter at hand. SPECIFICO talk 23:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• Alternative: "Media outlets have widely considered Trump as largely unprecedent in making false and misleading statements during his 2016 election campaign and his presidency." We could do with sounding a lot more neutral about the matter, and not seeming like Misplaced Pages shares that a view, while also being far more concise. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• I would strongly oppose that. The fact of Trump's unprecedented level of false and misleading statements is a fact, not a "view," and we do not hedge on that. Neutrality 01:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I never said it was a view. It should be paramount that Misplaced Pages appears neutral. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

You wrote that you wished to avoid "seeming like Misplaced Pages shares that view." Neutrality 04:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Neutrality: No worries, what I meant was that it seems like Misplaced Pages has a view. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, Misplaced Pages (that's us) is not supposed to choose sides, but it is unabashedly, because of our RS policy, on the side of RS when there is no doubt about a matter. Misplaced Pages (editors) is unabashedly on the side of the fact that the sky is blue and that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale. That's not opinion or a "view", it's a well-established fact backed by the vast preponderance of RS and huge amounts of measurable data. Few facts are more firmly established by data and data analysis. You can bank on this, because experience has taught us that, quoting David Zurawik, we should "just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backwards" because he's a "habitual liar".

You see, facts are not like opinions. They aren't mushy. They can withstand the onslaught of fact checkers and scientific analysis. They are falsifiable. They survive. Our duty is to make sure we don't present facts as opinions (and the converse). This is about the fact that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale and manner, and opinions that doubt that fact have little due weight and should only get passing mention. NPOV does require we document disagreement with that fact, but due weight tells us to do so in a very limited manner.

Misplaced Pages is a reality-based encyclopedia. It is neutral when it documents what RS say, even if what RS say appears to be biased (to the uninformed). NPOV requires that we document that bias and not censor or neuter it. Bias isn't always bad, and it's actually good to be biased for the facts. The facts are not central in politics, but are often held more firmly by one side more than the other, hence the famous quote "Reality has a well known liberal bias", or, as Paul Krugman put it, "Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias". -- Valjean (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages (editors) is unabashedly on the side of the fact that the sky is blue and that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale. There are a number of editors who are unable to check their POV about this at the door. Somehow that POV never makes it into mainspace, which suggests that "Misplaced Pages (editors)" is not unabashedly on the side of it, your view notwithstanding. Apparently "Misplaced Pages (editors)" feels that such strong statements are not supportable by Misplaced Pages policy. I happen to agree that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale, as well as a number of other really bad things, but I know my opinion is irrelevant here and it's crucial to understand that. I save that for discussions among family and friends. I happen to agree that RS supports the kind of content currently in this article about that, but that is quite different from wildly irresponsible statements about blue sky "fact" that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that not all Misplaced Pages editors are on the side of RS. I would never state in Misplaced Pages's voice that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale., but our sources would justify saying that Trump has made many false or misleading statements on a scale described as "unprecedented" in American politics. -- Valjean (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

If you would never state that in an article, to say it on an article talk page is to voice your POV opinion, violating NOTFORUM and distracting from policy-based discussion. Not to mention at least giving the strong impression that you are unable to leave your POV out of content decisions. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Neutrality. Let's reboot and get back to the source for the "unprecedented" wording. It isn't used in a willy nilly fashion.

• It has long been a truism that politicians lie, but with the entry of Donald Trump into the U.S. political domain, the frequency, degree, and impact of lying in politics are now unprecedented Donald Trump is different. By all metrics and counting schemes, his lies are off the charts. We simply have not seen such an accomplished and effective liar before in U.S. politics. Bolding added.

That is the sense in which we should continue to use the word. Trump isn't even close to anyone else. He's off the charts dishonest. -- Valjean (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

References

1. Zurawik, David (August 26, 2018). "Zurawik: Let's just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backward". The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved September 14, 2018.
2. Stelter, Brian; Bernstein, Carl; Sullivan, Margaret; Zurawik, David (August 26, 2018). "How to cover a habitual liar". CNN. Retrieved September 14, 2018.
3. McGranahan, Carole (May 2017). "An anthropology of lying: Trump and the political sociality of moral outrage". American Ethnologist. 44 (2): 243–248. doi:10.1111/amet.12475. It has long been a truism that politicians lie, but with the entry of Donald Trump into the U.S. political domain, the frequency, degree, and impact of lying in politics are now unprecedented Donald Trump is different. By all metrics and counting schemes, his lies are off the charts. We simply have not seen such an accomplished and effective liar before in U.S. politics.

You are far from the only offender, but statements like Trump isn't even close to anyone else. He's off the charts dishonest. are pure POV and have no place in any Misplaced Pages content discussion. That one simultaneously cites one source – or a hundred sources – does not make that appropriate. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me for agreeing with RS and paraphrasing them. -- Valjean (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The point is that:

• Whether you or I agree with RS is completely irrelevant for our purposes, as Misplaced Pages editing is not about our opinions.
• You didn't say you were paraphrasing RS, you presented it as objective fact. Those are not the same thing.

This is not hair-splitting. What we say affects how we think about these things, and that makes it important. In my view it also demonstrates how we're thinking about them. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: Then let's say Media outlets have widely considered Trump as largely unprecedented in making false and misleading statements during his 2016 election campaign and his presidency., because this is what reliable sources say. We shouldn't go beyond objective reliable sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

That wording is grammatially awkward, at least to my American ears. Above I suggested that our sources would justify saying that Trump has made many false or misleading statements on a scale described as "unprecedented" in American politics. I have stricken "many" as "scale" covers that aspect. "Described" refers to the fact that sources do this so we don't need to mention them. When we say the "sky is blue", we don't say that "reliable sources say the sky is blue." -- Valjean (talk) 05:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: I agree with that wording, with some minor changes. Trump has made misleading and false statements on a scale described as "unprecedented" by various media outlets. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose this change as a way to backdoor a controversial claim into Wikivoice. How many lies did Andrew Jackson tell? There is no way to have this material without attribution because there is no way to actually prove it. It will lead to endless disruption on the article and talk page as drive by readers and editors change it to something else. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

  Far from endless disruption, changes to consensus content are easily reverted without counting against 1RR. Persistent re-reverting by the "drive by" would earn a DS block, although that never happens when they are referred to the ArbCom restrictions and/or the #Current consensus list; the first revert is almost always enough. This has been proven to be a non-issue at this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

  And I haven't seen any readers who have WP:ECP status. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

  Since the RfC on this statement, which was prior to the pandemic, yes?, there has been a significant change in the landscape. There are new sources, e.g., 'You’re Gonna Beat It.' How Donald Trump’s COVID-19 Battle Has Only Fueled Misinformation or From COVID-19 to voting: Trump is nation's single largest spreader of disinformation, studies say I would say a revisit to the consensus statement is warranted, in any case. An important factor here is he is acting as the nation's leader with this misinformation - which is different than misinformation at other times. The lead statement should reflect that factor (drop "campaign", ignore misinformation prior to presidency?) As I've noted before, Trump's use of misinformation is one of his most notable characteristics; certainly a suitable, definitive statement in the lead is necessary. Voting and Covid-19 could be noted as two primary topics of misinformation. Bdushaw (talk) 07:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

  We could abandon "unprecedented" and its complications for a statement like:

KICKING AROUND IDEAS VERSION: While president, Trump has made many false or misleading statements, becoming a significant source of disinformation on voting practices and pandemic responses in 2020.

(Interesting to note the difference between "disinformation" and "misinformation" in this context.) Bdushaw (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

This fails to describe the outstanding nature of his falsehoods and misleading comments. Over long careers, plenty of politicians will have made "many false or misleading statements". starship.paint (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you are right - it is a curious problem how to describe, in a NPOV way, such incessant, voluminous disinformation and propaganda. I am not sure "unprecedented" does it either, while being a lightening rod for objections. I find I am, frankly, at a loss.

Bdushaw (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Could a statement like:

KICKING AROUND IDEAS VERSION: To promote or defend his image, policies or projects, Trump has regularly employed incessant, aggressive campaigns of falsehoods, disinformation or propaganda in public rallies and on radio, television, print or social media.

be supported? I believe this is getting closer to the truth of the matter, maybe. Bdushaw (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

(Needs three serial commas per convention in this article. Following policies, disinformation, and print. Best to get such minute details taken care of before the text makes it into the consensus list, not after.) ―Mandruss ☎ 19:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

At this point, our efforts are in retrograde, with each attempt worse than the preceding. I think we should leave the current text alone. None of the subsequent attempts is without problems. The first one (that I foolishly criticised for a misplaced comma) was OK, and there seemed to be consensus for that one. I would not object to using that one, but it's clear there's a little too much meaning to be gracefully crammed into a single sentence. Let's go with v.1 or v.0. SPECIFICO talk 21:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, well, perhaps my thrashing was still a useful exercise...people have been complaining how we never think outside the box. :) I have no objection to Neutrality's PROPOSED NEW VERSION, which I think is an improvement, given the difficulties. I think including "factcheckers" is of no value now; I have modest objections to the troubles "unprecedented" raises (also based on the troubles we had with the word on another article Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy; first sentence), but know of no better alternative (I tried, as all can see). As an aside, I noted the article is rather weak at describing Trump's use of political rallies during his campaigns and presidency. Such rallies are part of Trump's identity. Bdushaw (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

While I agree on the revised statement, a continued discussion of it is still warranted, IMO - the statement falls well short in that it misrepresents what are deliberate, massive campaigns of disinformation (following the Russian model?). I revise the statement above, just for kicks, and give a few citations on the massive disinformation campaigns that are going on, and have gone on. Its quite a bit more than what Donald Trump says or tweets out from time-to-time; its industrialized disinformation. All not unrelated to his hour-long call ins to friendly radio or TV programs.

KICKING AROUND IDEAS VERSION: To promote or defend his image, views or policies, Trump has employed aggressive campaigns of falsehoods, disinformation or propaganda in public rallies and on radio, television, or social media.

Billion dollar disinformation/Atlantic, Misinformation Machine/Sci. American, Trump's billion-dollar "Death Star"/Salon, Disinformation machine/CNN etc. The attacks on basic science are particularly disturbing, and have been notice. Bdushaw (talk) 11:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Okay, skimming over the above, it seems that this is (unsurprisingly) leading to a lot of discussion about potential modifications to the clause. Trying to stay on topic, I'd suggest a guiding question might be this: Would it be possible to make the passage more concise without fundamentally altering its meaning?

The concerns raised above about the switch to Misplaced Pages's voice are reasonable enough to warrant consideration, but they apply only to the "unprecedented" part, since the first part is already present in the page. That'd leave us with something like Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree the media has widely described as unprecedented in American politics. But for that, the distinction between what's widely present in secondary sources and what we're willing to state in Misplaced Pages's voice shouldn't exist, since per WP:V/WP:NOR/other core policies, Misplaced Pages's voice is supposed to reflect what's been widely present in secondary sources. So that leads to Neutrality's proposal. It might seem like it's saying something stronger, but fundamentally it's really not; it's just cutting out statements that don't need to be there. {{u|Sdkb}}  08:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding "unprecedented": The first bullet at WP:WIKIVOICE reads:

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."

Does widespread RS agreement make "unprecedented" a "fact" for the purposes of this bullet? Apparently not, or we wouldn't have the passage "However, these opinions should not be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. Rather, they should be where justified, described as widespread views, etc." Since it's entirely unproveable, "unprecedented" will always be an "opinion" for the purposes of this bullet, despite the fact that the opinion is widely held. So I disagree that that qualification doesn't need to be there. In any case, there is nothing factually incorrect about the status quo language and we are beating our heads against a wall in an effort to save 11 words in the lead, a lead that many or most editors insist is not overly long. Those 11 words certainly do not constitute undue weight for this issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support - per the nom and soibangla. Neutrality's original proposal seems like a distinct improvement to me. I disagree with the basis of Mr Ernie's opposing rationale in particular - not just for the reason that Mandruss cites, but also because, to my understanding, it's an accepted fact among RS that Trump has used misleading statements to a degree not seen before in US politics, not a "controversial claim". Jr8825 • Talk 02:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support. This essentially removes The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as, which is partially WP:PEACOCK stuff (it hypes how important it is) and partially describing facts as opinions ("the media have widely described"). Also, the current wording is inaccurate in that academic sources have also described it that way; but more generally, when something is essentially universally described a certain way by high-quality sources, it is inappropriate to characterize it as "described." Some people above have argued that this fact must always be framed as an opinion, but they haven't presented any actual reason why this would be the case (and, notably, they seem to implicitly concede that it is treated as fact by the overwhelming majority of sources.) If we go by that standard, any editor could, based on their personal feelings, term any fact covered by sources as a mere opinion and insist that we cover it as such - the flipside of "don't state opinions as facts" is "don't state facts as opinions"; and we rely on sourcing to determine which is which, not the gut feelings of editors. The sourcing here indicates that this is a fact. --Aquillion (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Insufficient justification for a change to the text resulting from six weeks and 10,000 words of discussion. See also my previous comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: I noticed that you didn't respond directly to the points that SPECIFICO and François Robere raised earlier, that the RfC dates from almost 2 years ago and there's now a much greater body of published media on Trump's exceptional use of false/misleading statements, allowing the statement to be given with more brevity and as widely accepted fact. Jr8825 • Talk 00:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  Re the use of wiki voice for "unprecedented", see this comment. No one has responded to that, and I don't require them to do so. I remain unconvinced by those arguments, and I generally don't consume discussion space to say "I remain unconvinced." ―Mandruss ☎ 10:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  On current consensus 35 (the long discussion you refer to), the point being amended is #3 from the close. The close says itself: Slight Consensus was for substantiating the "unprecedented" claim by citing fact-checkers. This was argued for mainly to avoid WP:WEASEL. Most seemed receptive to this logic. It was only part of the discussion, and there was only slight consensus for it. A full discussion just on that part has taken place here, and editors feel WP:WEASEL isn't a problem. So I personally disagree there is insufficient justification to overturn that consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

  "See also my previous comments." (which have nothing to do with WEASEL) ―Mandruss ☎ 14:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support new version. SPECIFICO talk 22:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
• Recent citation Today in the NY Times Dishonesty Has Defined the Trump Presidency. The Consequences Could Be Lasting "Whether President Trump wins or loses on Nov. 3, the very concept of public trust in an established set of facts necessary for the operation of a democratic society has been eroded." Unprecedented, indeed. Bdushaw (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support for brevity + link to Veracity of statements by Donald Trump for details. — JFG 07:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nominator for brevity amongst other reasons. I would also support JFG's suggestion that a link be included. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 08:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)*
• Oppose. As per statements by MelanieN and BlackBird1008 (and possibly others above), removing the phrase that indicates these lies have been looked at by professionals with the specific purpose of determining the truth of his statements weakens it and leaves the reader with the impression that it's just "general opinion" without a clear factual basis. Despayre   22:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, the media needs to be mentioned to maintain some resemblance of objectivity in the statement. I’d support removing the statement all together because many of the “false or misleading” statements he has made are subjective BlackBird1008 (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, though noting campaign should be revised to the plural "campaigns" to reflect the 2016 and 2020 campaigns. The change in word-count by shortening it is minor. Additionally, to preserve neutrality, explicit reference to the fact that the media is widely reporting the unprecedented nature of these statements is necessary. It should not be stated as an unsupported statement of fact, particularly given how contentious the statement is, and the fact that accusing someone of making misrepresentations is potentially libellous. Such statements should always reference external factual support. KJS ml343x (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Closure

Does this need an RfC? Opinion above appears to be split, with most supporting the proposal (numerically, about 9 or 10 editors), but a substantial minority (numerically, about 4 or 5 editors) opposing it. Neutrality 22:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, your proposal has consensus. SPECIFICO talk 22:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I've listed this at WP:RFCL, as I think everyone would benefit from an uninvolved close. Neutrality 02:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

"during his campaign"

I note the present lead has "campaign", singular, while the suggested text was corrected to "campaigns", plural. (And I note to all that it is lead, rather than lede. WP:Manual of Style/Lead section) The lead wikilinks campaign to Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign. Might I suggest a revision to "2016 and 2020 campaigns", where now the years wikilink to the appropriate article? (There could be a 2024 campaign, but we can defer that problem to a later date.) Alternatively, and redundantly but more clear, one could write "2016 campaign and 2020 campaign". Bdushaw (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Temporary suspension of WP:1RR rule

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

In order to give regular editors the leeway they need to deal with an increase in unhelpful "drive-by" edits, I am temporarily suspending the one-revert rule that has been on this article. The "24-hour BRD" rule listed in the Discretionary Sanctions template at the top of this page still applies. Here's what this means in practice:

• Every editor may now make up to 3 reverts per day per WP:3RR. BUT...
• You may not make the same edit or revert more than once per day (per the BRD rule) and after your first time making that edit or revert, you must discuss it on the talk page and wait 24 hours before attempting that edit again.

Put another way, reverts are linked to content. You can revert up to 3 different edits per day, but you can't add or remove the same content more than once per day.

Again, the purpose of this is to allow regular/experienced/content editors to deal with legitimately unhelpful or POV edits. It's not to give people more leeway in edit warring over content disputes that are under discussion or to engage in "tag-team edit warring" where editors take turns reverting the same content over and over. If I see that going on I will start blocking people's accounts, starting with the editors who are reverting against the status quo ante, those reverting against emerging consensus on the talk page, and those who are not using helpful WP:Edit summaries that clearly describe what they're doing and why they're doing it. ~Awilley (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much all of the reverts you're exempting are already exempt per WP:3RRNO anyway as either BLP issues or overt vandalism. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 19:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

"So far has refused to concede defeat"

I think this should be changed to "as of December 2020 has refused to concede defeat," per this guideline. Anyone object? ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 23:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

No need. As soon as he concedes (if he does), at least three people will try to update the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I would consider changing it to "Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden but refused to concede defeat." There's no reason at this point to expect that he ever will; if he does, of course, we can always update it, but the current (and proposed) wording both carry the implication that he will at some point, which isn't necessarily true. --Aquillion (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd support Aquillion's suggestion. That seems to sum up the situation quite well. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I link the template in the link, because it will always update to today's date. But even it would be incorrect between Trump's concession and the seconds it takes for someone to update the article. I don't think though that we can assume anything about whether and when Trump will concede, per WP:CRYSTALBALL. And just to think all this will probably come up in another two years when Trump announces his run for 2024. TFD (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Two years from now? I'm betting he makes his announcement on January 20, at a big maskless rally. Anything to steal the spotlight. Wanna bet? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Aquillion's suggestion. We shouldn't imply a concession is coming, and we don't need a ticking clock telling us it's X weeks and Y days and Z hours and Trump still hasn't conceded.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

In two minds, I doubt he will ever concede, but I am not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

So why should we raise the issue? Just say he hasn't, and when he does, change it. Just like we don't (normally) say people haven't died yet. Yes, I believe we will all die, but we don't need to raise the issue, and we certainly don't need to say that as of December 2020 Ariana Grande is still alive.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Because its just a bit Crystaily to me. Its not the same as dying we have no choice over that Donny has a choice as to what he does here. Thus he may decode to concede, not concede launch a coup or just throw a nasty little temper tantrum and be sick all over the carpet. The fact is we do not know what he will do. I am now leading towards we should not say this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Say what?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Its not January yet, anything can happen. We lose nothing by waiting.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the best course of action is to use "As of " until Biden is inaugurated on Jan. 20. Assuming that Trump never concedes, the language can be changed after Biden's inauguration to "refused to concede defeat" or "never conceded defeat". Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Basil the Bat Lord. It can be changed to a more permanent "refused to concede defeat" after Biden's inauguration, and in the mean time I think we should use "as of" language, as I suggested above, reflecting the possibility (however remote it may be) that he'll eventually see the light. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 19:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

a) Everyone knows he hasn’t conceded, so we aren’t adding any information. b) Concession is not required or legally meaningful. c) It will be changed shortly, not close to passing WP:10YT. WP:NODEADLINE O3000 (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I think User:ONUnicorn is absolutely right. We always try to avoid temporal terms like "currently" or "now" or "so far", because they assume a time frame which may or may not be known to the reader, and are just not encyclopedic. I think it should be changed to "but as of (insert current date template) he has refused to concede defeat." Alternatively, we could simplify things by going with User:Aquillion's suggestion "refused to concede defeat". The "as of" construction suggests that we are holding our breath, sure that he will concede any day now; I think most of us here are pretty sure that he never will. So all in all I think I prefer the second suggestion. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems the people commenting have developed a consensus to leave out both "so far" and "as of", with just "refused to concede defeat" per Aquillion's suggestion. I have changed it accordingly. If anyone thinks I was premature and that the discussion should continue, I have no problem with being reverted. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 16:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, look. There is substantial sources saying that this is disputed. The best thing to do is to say that there are two main schools of thoughts, one from the defeat side and the other from the won side. There is a substantial indifferent-concerned school of thought, too.

Daily Wire and Anthony Brian Logan are two main sources that have shown consistent arguments that either the election is uncertain or Trump won.

R&R Law Group has been reviewing the lawsuits and has found legitimate questions of fraud that SHOULD be investigated. They, of course, are a law group and maintain a neutral stance as an observer trying to figure out what the government is doing. (The use of "we" is used since while it is they who talked about, I also am on the side that there is merit to these particular legal theories.) *We have #suitcasegate in Georgia, with probable malfeasance by the election officials after the election collection date.

• We have a Wisconsin lawsuit that actually has Trump, himself, as the plaintiff where there was a lot of malfeasance on the Government side and the election officials running up to the election.
• We have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court showing a partisan lean in its malfeasance and is likely to be in the US Supreme Court this week; we have a solid argument that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires changes to election law to go through a constitutional amendment process which was not done either by the legislature and could not be done by the judicial branch; we also know there is a history of corruption in this state.
• Then Arizona has Kelli Ward who has found 2 out of 100 duplicated ballots were done incorrectly and resulted in a lost Trump vote and a switched Trump vote to Biden; there is, I believe, an FBI warrant and seizure in relation to voting malfeasance; there was a problem with Sharpiegate, and this may or may not be an issue, though it could be.
• Michigan had some "glitches"; there were efforts to prevent observers from observing; and of course there is some Sidney Powell stuff.
  • Dominion is an electronic system. Thus, it will have security issues like normal computers unless they actually managed to do the impossible and make a perfect product, especially when using Windows platforms for their equipment.

So the additional caveat of "unsubstantiated allegations of electoral fraud" is incorrect. The three sources I mentioned are on Youtube. Why should I bother getting links to them if you are likely to ignore me? Do it yourself. 2600:8800:5E06:601:697D:353A:CE27:E539 (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• I think "as of" is also unencyclopedic. It should only be used if there is no certainty of further information coming to hand any time soon: such as, "As of 2015 Jerry Little was living in Seattle and playing the banjo in small venues".--Jack Upland (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead edit request

"Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden" should be changed to "Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Democratic nominee Biden". JJARichardson (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Why?Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree it probably isn't necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I also agree. It only makes the article longer, I could live with changing it to "...lost the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden", instead of the very informal reference by last name only, but that's about it. Despayre  

I would also support adding Biden's first name to the lead. Simply putting it as "Biden" is overly casual for a lead given that it is the first mention of him in the article. It also assumes that our readers are familiar with him, and I am sure that some international readers may not be. Mgasparin (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

It is not the first mention. That's the point, per MOS:SURNAME. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I was reading too fast. Missed his first mention in the above paragraph. Mgasparin (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree, there should be an edit. I left a comment under "'So far has refused to concede defeat'". The election is not over until the Constitution says it is, and that is when Congress elects the President. Just because we go vote, that is a courtesy because that's what people have asked for over the two centuries of America being a country. It is not the ultimate nor the penultimate stage of the election, it is merely a gauge to help inform the legislatures of the states and then Congress. 2600:8800:5E06:601:697D:353A:CE27:E539 (talk) 04:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Lede way too long; paragraph on Trump's election litigation should be deleted

First, this lede is terribly written and way too long. Compare the six paragraphs to the five on Barack Obama or the four on George W. Bush. In general, the problem arises from people placing too much emphasis on the day to day hysterias of the Trump era and not taking a long view on the important things that happened in his Administration.

Second, Trump's lawsuits are a joke and don't deserve a lede mention. We should only have one sentence about this nonsense, e.g. "Trump refused to concede to Biden, and promoted conspiracy theories about the 2020 election in which Biden defeated him." CozyandDozy (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

This current situation isn't comparable to previous presidents though. And RS make that clear. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that Donny is about the first president who has done most of this, the twitter meltdown's the vexatious litigation. IN fact this may well be what he is most remembered for, the childish egotism.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree with CozyandDozy; it could certainly be cut down, and I think I agree in the way he suggested. Some of the lede does strike me as a little WP:UNDUE (at least, for a lede). — Czello 12:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The central fact about Trump is that he did not understand or care about the roles of the president or the larger US government. This is the context for whatever events and detail are presented in the article. It took the mainstream 2-3 years to realize they were validating arbitrary, false, and self-serving narratives by describing Trump's actions as if they were based on principle or policy. WP appropriately followed suit, but those days are over and the article needs wholesale revision to bring it in line. I would not start with the lead, however, although some of the proposed revisions do reflect changes that should eventually be made. SPECIFICO talk 13:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I feel like we should wait a few months before making any drastic changes to the lede, since things are still changing fast and it will probably be simpler to get a sense of what matters once he is no longer President. That said, his lede isn't actually longer than Barack Obama's, that I can see, and is about the same size as George W. Bush's? --Aquillion (talk) 13:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Another way to think about it, in terms of WP articles, is that Trump's case is fundamentally different than Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter, G.W. Bush, or other presidents who are merely considered incompetent. We should review all the article text in this light. SPECIFICO talk 13:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Nixon, Reagan and Bush were all portrayed by Democrats as the worst presidents in American history, but later idealized. Trump will join them once the Republicans manage to elect another president. Nixon didn't have twitter, but have you listened to what he said in private? TFD (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

But I have identified the critical and defining difference between Trump and other US persidents. In the case of Nixon, he was despised but not called incompetent, so he was not even in the category of the 3 failures I cited. Do you reject this distinction? SPECIFICO talk 15:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Page size again

 Question: isn't the whole article way too long? i mean, we got nearly 1,000 sources! i'm all for verifiability, but that's a touch too much. This article is enormous, things should be cut and/or moved to other articles, i think. Coltsfan (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Coltsfan, the article is vastly oversized. See our discussion.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Jack Upland, I saw that, but still, it never went anywhere. This article needs to be trim down pronto. Coltsfan (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

What's the fastest way to lose 50 pounds? Have a leg amputated. Not many people go that route. It never went anywhere, nor did any of the preceding dozen or so discussions about this spanning several years. Things look a bit different when one has been around to witness all of them and their net result. In the end, the article will do what a majority of its editors want it to do, and this article may be reduced to a more reasonable size when most of its editors have moved on to the next political battlefield. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

What's the best way to cook pasta? Jump 4 times in a lake. Anyways. It's not even a matter of the topic being contentious or lack of historical perspective. It's lack of will. The article being ginormous is a strong enough deterrent. Coltsfan (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Editorializing in the Lead

"Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic." There's no citation here or evidence. It's fair to say that he has undergone criticism for his response to COVID-19, but, I don't there's much evidence to say the initial response was objectively slow. After all, he did react in the beginning by closing down borders while Pelosi and Biden were criticizing that move. That's not exactly a slow response. Let's be more objective here and say he underwent criticism for a botched response, but slow is just patently false. The editorializing in this lead is actually quite disgraceful. -- Ambrosiaster (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Ambrosiaster, there are no citations in the lead per MOS:LEADCITE. Everything that is in the lead is (or at least should be) in the article's body with citations present there. In the case of Trump's response to COVID-19, see Donald Trump#Initial response, where there are citations for the statement. Also see #Current consensus #48, which includes links to the discussions about the use of the word "slow". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The response to COVID-19 was a multi-frontal response. According to NBC News, some elements of Trump's response, were timely, but the messaging was mixed and there was other clear mistakes in his response. Just because one front of the attack on COVID-19 was slow (the one you're referring to in the NY Times and LA Times articles cited) is not enough to mean the entire response was objectively slow. Some parts of it were slow, while others were effective; other parts of it were botched, while others, such as "Operation Warp Speed,' were effective; the messaging was poor and mixed. This just seems like a lot of editorializing to me. "Slow" implies the the entire response was slow. That's at variance with other sources. -- Ambrosiaster (talk) 09:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It's a broad summary of what the sources say, as is appropriate for the lead; the body has a more detailed breakdown. But the LA Times says eg. In that key early period, many of the Trump presidency’s most deeply ingrained characteristics — its distrust of the federal bureaucracy, internal personality conflicts, lack of a formal policymaking process and Trump’s own insistence on controlling the public message — severely hampered the federal response, according to current and former White House officials and public health experts. ... Weeks were lost that could have been used to test and isolate the first infected patients, purchase medical supplies, prepare makeshift hospitals and enlist corporations in quickly ramping up production of badly needed respirators and other supplies. The NYT summary is An examination reveals the president was warned about the potential for a pandemic but that internal divisions, lack of planning and his faith in his own instincts led to a halting response, and their article reflects that; the other piece I just added states that that was just one of several examples that underscored the price of the Trump administration’s slow response to evidence as early as January that the coronavirus was headed to the United States - that is to say, they make it clear that his entire response, overall, was slow and halting in a way that had severe costs. The fact that Trump was slow to react to COVID-19 is well-covered in the sources and is broadly uncontroversial among reliable sources; we have to summarize key points like that in the lead. This is especially true in this case because Trump's mishandling of COVID-19 likely cost him re-election, so it's a core part of his biography. --Aquillion (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Aquillion, but write to add one more point. Ambrosiaster: You state that parts of were botched, while others, such as "Operation Warp Speed,' were effective but the statement that Warp Speed was effective is at odds with the sources. Washington Post December 5: "Trump’s Operation Warp Speed promised a flood of covid vaccines. Instead, states are expecting a trickle. The administration pledged several hundred million doses in 2020. Companies will actually ship about 10 percent of that." Or the Associated Press Nov. 15: "Trump ... tried to take full credit for drugmaker Pfizer Inc.'s news that its COVID-19 vaccine may be 90% effective and suggested the mission was basically done. ... His assertions on both matters are untrue. ... Pfizer notably did not accept government money to develop, test or expand manufacturing capacity under Trump's Operation Warp Speed initiative." Neutrality 20:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

#Current consensus #48 does not say there is consensus for "slow". I think a better adjective would be "chaotic".--Jack Upland (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

_ In a recent interview with AFP, Dr Anthony Fauci has actually praised Operation Warp Speed. I quote: "Operation Warp Speed has been very successful and I'm certain that we will continue the pathway of Operation Warp Speed. I think, in credit to what has gone on in the current administration, I think that is a quite successful endeavor. I mean, to come up with a vaccine that is ready for distribution in less than a year, from the time the virus was identified is really an unprecedented speed". Fauci's feedback is probably a more reliable source of information than the rants of reporters in the Washington Post. Ambrosiaster is most likely correct on Operation Warp Speed. Mcrt007 (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

"Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden"

This is just straight up false, as the election has not been settled yet. If we had a concession from Trump then we could say with certainty that Biden won the election, but not now as there is no concession and clearly legal disputes. The electoral college decides the official winner of the election, which happens at December 14th 2020.

One might not like Trump's accusations of fraud, but that does not mean one can simply deny the fact that no winner has been officially declared yet. At Misplaced Pages we strive for neutrality, so I think it goes without saying that integrity should be a bare minimum.

Alternate phrasing: "Biden was projected as the winner by the media but Trump refused to concede defeat." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pekanel (talk • contribs) 11:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

RS say he won, so far no court case has said he has not.Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Concession is not a legal mechanism in any way. Giving a concession speech neither prevents you from winning an election should a recount change the results, nor does giving a concession speech mean you cannot mount legal challenges. The existence of lawsuits, especially frivolous ones, does not constitute true legal challenge or dispute. President-elect, as a title, is never mentioned in the US Constitution, let alone reserving it for only after the Electors have sat. However, the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 does use the phrase "president-elect," and so United States law explicitly states that once the General Services Administration has ascertained the winner of the election (and the law was explicitly created so that the transition could begin well ahead of the seating of the Electors), the person ascertained is the president-elect. That can be superseded by the Electors doing something different, but until they do, the law clearly states that GSA ascertains who is the president-elect. The GSA did so on November 23rd, meaning that after that date, there was no legal argument to be made that Biden could not be called the president-elect. None of this matters much in terms of Misplaced Pages, where my arguments could be deemed original research or synthesis, but fortunately, my arguments aren't even needed. All reliable sources call Biden the president-elect, and we do what the reliable sources say. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 06:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead: "mounted a series of unsuccessful legal challenges to the results"

I've revised the text to give a number for the lawsuits that Trump has filed. I'd like to change the phrase "mounted a series of unsuccessful legal challenges to the results" to "filed numerous unsuccessful legal challenges to the results". I modestly object to the use of the word "series", since that indicates a plan or sequence of law suits, whereas I don't think that's the case. "mounted" is a little odd as well. Anyways, following directions to discuss first as requested in the lead. Bdushaw (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Just a thought, but many of the lawsuits have not actually been filed by Trump himself, but rather by others on his behalf. We may want to think about that in the wording. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe "he has supported or called for a series of legal challenges to the results (yes I support "series, as many have in fact has second episodes (or more).Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• This statement seems premature. There are still a number of challenges to the election pending before SCOTUS. Also, many of these suits have not been filed by Trump or his campaign. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 13:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • None of the so-called "challenges" will be successful, and the overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources confirms this, but you are correct about the fact some of the suits are not directly from Trump (I point I made above). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Its a valid point that most of the lawsuits are not Trump himself. A look at the cites shows its Trump, his campaign, state congressmen, states attornies general, private citizens, etc filing the law suits. Sources use "Trump or his allies", perhaps "Trump or his Republican allies filed numerous unsuccessful legal challenges to the results"? Unsure of the value of having the article text describe the wide nature of those filing the lawsuits. Bdushaw (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

This is an article about Trump, and the lead should be about him, not about what other people have done, and we don't want too much detail there either. It would be OK to say "he supported a series". I think the word "series" is broad enough to cover this.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I went with "he or his allies" in the article, which is what the citations seemed to use most often. I decided that "he or his confederates" was a might POV. I'd suggest the same in the lead. The reason for elaborating on who is supporting these lawsuits in the article would be to describe the breadth of support that Trump has in his efforts. Republican congressmen, states attornies general, etc. and some 40% of Americans support the lawsuits and believe the election was grossly flawed - the power of Trump repeating his rhetoric from the bully pulpit. Plus more and more people are warning of the possibility of violence. It is not just Trump out on his own challenging the election. Bdushaw (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Addition of National security subsection to Domestic policy

I propose a new subsection related to National security in the Domestic policy aspect of the Presidency heading:

National security

See also: Trump Tower wiretapping allegations

As president, Trump repeatedly claimed the Obama Administration had wiretapped communication at his Trump Tower office during the end of his 2016 presidential campaign and amid his transition into the presidency. Due to this belief, Trump sought to deny the FISA Court from targeting resident Americans, which came ahead during the approaching deadline to reauthorize the Patriot Act, of which expanded the authority of the FISA Court in the domestic sphere. Due to Republican resistance after public urging from Trump, efforts to reauthorize FISA Court surveillance authorities were pulled in May 2020.

MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 09:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• No mention of the wiretap without his 2019 admission that it was bullshit. ... a long time ago, very early on I used the word ‘wiretap,’ and I put in quotes, meaning surveillance, spying you can sort of say whatever you want ... I said that just on a little bit of a hunch and a little bit of wisdom maybe ... It was pretty insignificant I thought when I said it... starship.paint (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  The claim itself is structured in the way to emphasize he doesn't have evidence for it, the main reasoning for including it is it's regarded by sources to have influenced his decision to block renewal of the Patriot Act. Inclusion of "claimed without evidence" would likely remedy the situation. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  This detail is better suited to the sub-articles. For this bio, the salient point is how it relates to the large number of his other various conspiracy theories and personal grievances. SPECIFICO talk 15:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  Even if we add “without evidence”, the key problem is Due to this belief. If we cut the motive, left out the wiretapping claims, just discussed the FISA actions, I wouldn’t oppose. starship.paint (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

  Actually I’m sure this could be done more succinctly. Trump attempted from , but Republicans ultimately blocked that effort in 2020. starship.paint (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)|

  But the personal motivation was significant. SPECIFICO talk 02:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• It's just another one of the conspiracy theories promoted by Trump (the Greatest Political Crime In the History of the U.S., the Russian Witch-Hunt), in this case coupled with his Obama obsession (you provided the link to the LA Times article containing a list). Ironically, it helped to do away with Bush administration legislation whose renewal a big faction of the Democrats had opposed in March but IMO that's a little thin for a new subsection. It's not at all clear that it would have passed even without Trump's involvement. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

  The crux of the subsection is blocking legislation in relation to National security interests, of which the Patriot Act has been well-regarded as one of the most well-known and impactful of the past 20 years; the allegation is not the center-point but added context, otherwise I'd have listed it as Main article and not See also. Harkening back to a comment left by @SPECIFICO: in which the content of the majority of the article relates to the large number of his other various conspiracy theories and personal grievances, it also serves a fitting purpose in the grand scheme.

  The collapsing of the vote to renew it has been regarded as a bipartisan affair by sources covering the story, in which Trump is often named as having played a key role, with his threatening to veto it had it been passed otherwise often referenced. As The New York Times writes here, the president has a history of erratic intervention in FISA legislation politics. I believe it's noteworthy of inclusion for this reason alone. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

  For that reason -only-, if at all. SPECIFICO talk 14:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Bias information.

“He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, downplayed the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.”

This is more an opinion than it is fact and is up for debate. It should be changed to say something to the effect of some have criticized him for x, y and z while others would argue x, y and z.

I think that would be better because it gives readers both view points. But what is currently there is undeniably bias. 23gaydosg (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable, independent source that supports your view. HiLo48 (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

(For future reference, the word you want is "biased". Information cannot be "bias".) ―Mandruss ☎ 10:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Why is that up to me? I don’t even have the capability to edit the Misplaced Pages page. Plus if you go and read the paragraph it doesn’t cite any reliable source that would suggest that he reacted slowly and so on. So it seems like a double standard that it is my responsibility to provide a source when the paragraph that is currently there doesn’t even cite a reliable source.

Better yet just get rid of that part all together, problem solved. 23gaydosg (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

23gaydosg, the lead is not supposed to have citations per MOS:LEADCITE, because all of the information in the lead is supposed to be in the body, where it has its citations. Look to the body and you'll see that it's in the body and there are reliable sources covering that information. Why is it up to you to find sources? Because we already have WP:CONSENSUS, so the WP:ONUS of changing it is on you. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Mention election loss in the first paragraph

I think we should note in the first paragraph that he was defeated and will be a one-term president. He won't be in office anymore in 37 days, and one-termers are quite rare, so it seems important enough that it should be listed very early on. Thoughts? Cpotisch (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Would you please not add Outgoing in the infobox of this article, Mike Pence's, Melania Trump's & Karen Pence's articles? It's something we simply don't do, even for lameducks. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Fine, though I wasn’t the first to do it. I thought there was consensus early on that this was the eventual plan, but fine. Cpotisch (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I oppose this in the first paragraph, per my comment in this discussion, which can be distilled to being extraordinary is not a good reason to include something in the first paragraph, with which you appeared to agree. It now appears that either you didn't fully understand my point, or you're prepared to set it aside for something you consider sufficiently extraordinary. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The obvious change now needed in the first paragraph is to say "was...." rather than "is the 45th and current president of the United States" Or does that have to wait until Biden's inauguration? HiLo48 (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it waits. He remains president until January 20, another five weeks and change, so it would be patently false to say he "was" the 45th president. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Fine, so there is no point in changing anything in the first paragraph yet. HiLo48 (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think being a one-termer is really rare or extraordinary. I think 23 out of 44 presidents had one full term or less. I think 10 failed to win re-election. As I've said before, this isn't a baseball card.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden as successor

Joe Biden should be linked as Trump's successor in the infobox. The Electoral College has voted at this point. Successors to incumbents are linked in every other case in American politics — including all the members-elect of the next Congress, as well as, historically, Trump on Obama's page when he was elected, and all other American officials-elect. To ignore this consistent and longstanding practice is absurd. Trump's successor should not be linked only in the bottom of the lead. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

There's an RFC taking place at WP:Village Pump (proposals), concerning this topic. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

We had a local discussion about this awhile back, you can find it in the archives of this page. It received plenty of participation but failed to reach a consensus to include – despite the precedent at other articles, which was one of the factors considered. When content is disputed and a consensus to include it cannot be reached, the default is to omit it, which is what this article currently does. If a community consensus is reached in the VPR RfC, this article will comply with it. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I have now commented on there. For the record, I think that the situation has changed significantly since that discussion, considering that the electors have now cast their votes. That being said, I do agree that the same policy should be applied universally. I present my reasoning on the linked discussion. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Trump was not listed on Obama's page, nor was Obama listed on Bush's page, until the inauguration. If you're going to cite precedent, please do so appropriately. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not breaking news nor is it the place to try and advertise the future you're happy with happening. Biden is not Trump's successor until he takes the office. The fact that's been done on less watched articles is irrelevant - obviously, less watched/less major articles are going to be prime grounds for people to attempt to violate the concept of being an encyclopedia for their own ideas/reasons. That's shown by the fact that in the discussion earlier, many people didn't even know that other articles were violating the standard (on template:infobox officeholder) of waiting until they take the office. There has been a consensus for years, if not over a decade, that it applies once they've taken the office - because that's what we are - an encyclopedia. The electoral college voting does not change the fact that Biden is not yet Trump's successor. He is merely the "expected successor" - which is not an encyclopedic piece of information. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, you are right that Trump wasn't listed on Obama's page at the time (Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_81#Should_Trump_be_listed_in_the_Infobox_as_Obama's_successor?). That being said, the precedent is present on virtually every page for every other position in the federal government — so if it is really a problem, then it is one in need of quite severe cleanup. It is quite clear that the consensus on the ground, so to speak, is not the same as the agreement in those discussions — that is to say, the results differ from what has continued to be all along the almost-universal practice. I think that the practice which has been in common use is appropriate — and I comment as much on the RFC. As for WP:RGW, my personal opinions on Donald Trump and/or Joe Biden have nothing to do with this (and indeed that Biden has been elected is verifiable — see what RGW says; that's not a matter of my personal opinion). And as for the "expected successor" not being an encyclopedia piece of information — see my comment on the RFC; Writing that someone is an elected successor is, I would say, encyclopedic information, pertaining to the result of a notable event which took place in the past (the 2020 United States Presidential Election, in this case). If it said that Trump's term were over, or that Trump had in fact been succeeded by Biden, then it would be inaccurate, but to say that Biden has been elected to the office is true. Counterexample: Hillary Clinton was expected by many to succeed Barack Obama. She did not. She was never elected President of the United States. While she was an "expected successor" on a speculative basis, that isn't fitting for an infobox (nor would it have been before the 2016 election). But the result of an election is indeed encyclopedic knowledge. If, for instance, Donald Trump were not to be succeeded by Joe Biden, due to some incident which were to hypothetically befall one of the two between now and January 20, the indication that Biden had been elected president would still be true and worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages – I support mention of the "successor-elect" somewhere in prose (and this article does so), but I oppose the idea that that requires inclusion in the infobox. I think they can have different criteria for inclusion, with a higher bar for the infobox because of its limited space and necessary absence of nuance and context. When I framed the RfC, it was not my intent to address prose content, and I think I made that sufficiently clear. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss The Electoral College has voted and formally confirmed Biden as 46th president. We shouldn't wait any longer as there is no longer any doubt that Biden will succeed Trump (barring Biden's premature death). (1,2) Mgasparin (talk) 07:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

There hasn't been any significant doubt for some weeks, since a dozen or two court cases in a row had failed. Even when there was a little doubt, that was never the sole reason for omitting the field from the infobox until Biden takes office (although many editors regrettably saw it that narrow way and !voted accordingly). Beyond saying that, I don't care to regurgitate the entire debate here. Please, let's just wait and see what happens in the RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Mid-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class WikiProject Business articles
• Mid-importance WikiProject Business articles
• WikiProject Business articles
• B-Class New York City articles
• High-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• B-Class Conservatism articles
• High-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• B-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• B-Class American politics articles
• Top-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• B-Class political party articles
• High-importance political party articles
• Political parties task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Top-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Top-importance
• B-Class American television articles
• Mid-importance American television articles
• American television task force articles
• B-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Top-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• B-Class United States Presidents articles
• High-importance United States Presidents articles
• WikiProject United States Presidents articles
• B-Class United States Government articles
• High-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class television articles
• Mid-importance television articles
• WikiProject Television articles
• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press