Talk:Donald Trump

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 Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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: 7 days

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.

Want to add new information about Donald Trump? Most often, it should not go here.
Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example:

... or dozens of other places, as listed in {{Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!

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 may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
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 Wikipedia, 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.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, 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!

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia'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

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. 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

	New York City portal 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 Wikipedia. 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

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. 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 High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. 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).

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

	United States portal 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 Wikipedia. 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.
	Television portal 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

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Cuozzo, Steve (November 16, 2013). "Don't Trust Anything on Wikipedia". New York Post.
Popper, Ben (July 22, 2015). "Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Wikipedia page". The Verge.
Merrill, Jeremy (February 1, 2016). "On Wikipedia, 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). "Wikipedia 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' Wikipedia pages". The Washington Post.
Staff Writer (December 21, 2016). "Most-edited Wikipedia pages of 2016 revealed". BBC News.
Gartenberg, Chaim (January 20, 2017). "Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia". The Daily Dot.
Warren, Tom (22 November 2018). "Siri thinks Donald Trump is a penis". The Verge.
Blumenthal, Eli (22 November 2018). "Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia edit". The Independent.
Gander, Kashmira (23 November 2018). "Someone hacked Donald Trump's Wikipedia page, replaced photo with image of penis". Newsweek.
Martin, Alan (26 November 2018). "The Trump penis Wikipedia war has kicked off again". The Inquirer.
Brandom, Russell (December 4, 2018). "Wikipedia engages the 'nuclear option' after Trump penis hack". The Verge.
Mak, Aaron (May 28, 2019). "Donald Trump's Wikipedia Entry Is a War Zone". Slate.
Alex Pasternack (7 March 2020). "How Wikipedia's volunteers became the web's best weapon against misinformation". Fast Company. Retrieved 9 March 2020.

Donald Trump is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

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
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Template:Vital article

Other talk page banners

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

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.

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.

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 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 Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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: 7 days

Section sizes

Section size for Donald Trump (88 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	9,242	9,242
Early life and education	3,028	3,028
Personal life	19	5,027
Family	1,323	1,323
Health	3,685	3,685
Business career	149	35,770
Real estate	4,555	15,954
Manhattan and Chicago developments	6,168	6,168
Atlantic City casinos	3,610	3,610
Clubs	1,621	1,621
Licensing the Trump name	1,364	1,364
Side ventures	7,323	7,323
Foundation	5,025	5,025
Legal affairs and bankruptcies	2,315	2,315
Wealth	3,640	3,640
Media career	3,452	5,107
The Apprentice and the Celebrity Apprentice	1,655	1,655
Early political aspirations	4,690	4,690
2016 presidential election	18,542	18,542
First presidency (2017–2021)	633	176,594
Early actions	2,743	2,743
Conflicts of interest	3,367	3,367
Domestic policy	20,661	20,661
Race relations	6,232	6,232
Pardons and commutations	2,574	2,574
Immigration	3,086	20,394
Travel ban	4,347	4,347
Family separation at the border	6,269	6,269
Mexico–United States border wall and government shutdown	6,692	6,692
Foreign policy	2,859	35,965
Trade	2,517	2,517
Russia	4,221	4,221
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	31,456
Initial response	7,681	7,681
White House Coronavirus Task Force	5,253	5,253
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	2,666	2,666
Effects on the 2020 presidential campaign	2,403	2,403
Investigations	1,079	26,084
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	12,830	12,830
First impeachment	10,208	10,208
Second impeachment	3,398	3,398
2020 presidential election	34	23,805
Loss to Biden	7,001	15,768
Rejection of results	8,767	8,767
January 6 Capitol attack	8,003	8,003
First post-presidency (2021–2025)	5,018	35,268
Business activities	2,382	2,382
Investigations, criminal indictments and convictions, civil lawsuits	547	27,868
FBI investigations	5,703	5,703
Criminal referral by the House January 6 Committee	693	693
State criminal indictments	2,969	2,969
Federal criminal indictments	5,378	5,378
Criminal conviction in the 2016 campaign fraud case	6,204	6,204
Civil judgments	6,374	6,374
2024 presidential election	14,726	14,726
Political practice and rhetoric	8,372	47,271
Racial and gender views	9,377	9,377
Link to hate crimes	3,793	3,793
Conspiracy theories	3,318	3,318
Truthfulness	10,483	10,483
Social media	5,810	5,810
Relationship with the press	6,118	6,118
Assessments	18	6,969
Public image	4,525	4,525
Scholarly	2,426	2,426
Notes	136	136
References	30	30
Works cited	18	11,664
Books	3,256	3,256
Journals	8,390	8,390
External links	5,431	5,431
Total	403,300	403,300

Highlighted open discussions

None.

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

1. 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)

2. 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)

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

4. Superseded by #15

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

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

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

7. Superseded by #35

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

8. Superseded by unlisted consensus

Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (Dec 2016, superseded Nov 2024)

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

10. Canceled

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

11. Superseded by #17

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

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

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 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)

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

17. Superseded by #50

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

18. Superseded by #63

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

19. Obsolete

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

20. Superseded by unlisted consensus

Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies ~~have~~ sparked numerous protests. (June 2017, May 2018, superseded December 2024) (Note: In February 2021, when he was no longer president, the verb tense was changed from "have sparked" to "sparked", without objection.)

21. Superseded by #39

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

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

23. Superseded by #52

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

24. Superseded by #30

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

25. In citations, do not code the archive-related parameters for sources that are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35. Superseded by #49

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

36. Superseded by #39

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

37. Resolved: Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (June 2019)

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

39. Supersedes #21 and #36. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not 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)

45. Superseded by #48

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Welcomed and encouraged" fails V

User:Scjessey - starting a TALK thread on this one, we seem at BRD time to open up a discussion on it.

While cleaning out excess cites, I came to a line in Special Counsel Investigation with four cites on it.

The report states that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion", and it details how Trump and his campaign "welcomed and encouraged" foreign interference believing they would politically benefit.[724][742][743][744]

The problem is that Mueller did not literally say "welcomed and encouraged", so the article enquoting is a false presentation. There is no "encouraged" about the interference and for the only line in Mueller report (pg 5) which says "welcomed" this text seems an invalid paraphrase. None of the cites actually say 'welcomed and encouraged' - specifically it doesn't say encouraged and it says only Trump campaign not Trump - or anything really close -- so I removed the back half of the line as lacking V.

724 is the Mueller report. There is a "welcome" on Page 5, the second page of the Executive summary: The presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump (“Trump Campaign” or “Campaign”) showed interest in WikiLeaks’s releases of documents and welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton.
742 is a David Frum May 2019 piece on theatlantic.com of his opinions what the report said. The body includes The Trump campaign “expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts,” and it “welcomed” this help.
743 is a Jane Timm April 18, 2019 piece on the report, and it's subtitle said Trump's campaign "expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts," Mueller's report said.
744 is a Monica Alba piece April 24, 2019, on the 2020 election and that the re-election campaign has not publicly stated that it will not use hacked materials to it's advantage. Down in the body is a line the Trump team expected to "benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts."

So - the enquoting of "welcomed and encouraged" is factually false, and the line in the article is a bad paraphrase of Mueller or any of the cites then present.

I did find use of the phrase in a WP:BIASED source about Muellers testiomny, a Congresswoman McCollum (DFL-Minn) press release here “Mr. Mueller’s testimony today reaffirmed that Russia attacked our democracy in the 2016 election to solely benefit Donald Trump. The Trump campaign welcomed and encouraged the interference and lied about it to cover it up. But as a partisan source that would have to be attributed and the PR just doesn't seem itself WP:WEIGHT enough to have in article.

So obviously I believe the best option was to just drop the end bit. Whether they liked it or not simply isn't a major part of the Mueller report. The first volume is on the Russian activities, and the second volume is on Trump hindering the investigation. Alternatively, the phrase could be edited to replace the part failing V with something that is the actual text such as Trump's campaign "expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts" or Trump's campaign "welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton".

RSVP and open to input from others. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Markbassett, OK, so "welcomed" and "encouraged" is fine. Or remove the quotes, they are superfluous anyway. Just fix it. Guy (help!) 21:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcomed is well sourced. The exact word encouraged I don’t see. But, we don’t need to use exact words if unquoted. Publicly announcing that he hoped Russia would recover emails described as missing from a private server sounds like encouragement to me. Welcomed and encouraged with no quotes works for me. O3000 (talk) 21:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Invited" and "requested" would also be accurate. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Solicited and welcomed? SPECIFICO talk 02:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcomed and encouraged without the quotes works for me, too. A quick search for each verb produced a long list of RS using welcomed and four using encouraged ([1], [2], [3], [4]). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Welcomed and encouraged" may have originated from the hearings. For example, this exchange between Robert Mueller and Adam Schiff:~~

SCHIFF: Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian interference?
MUELLER: Yes.
SCHIFF: And then Trump and his campaign lied about it to cover it up?
MUELLER: Yes.

~~On that basis, it would seem that "welcomed and encouraged" is fine, with or without the quotes.~~ -- Scjessey (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC) Update: The description on the video does not match the language in the video. My apologies for not checking. However, this does not change the fact "welcomed and encouraged" is a perfectly acceptable summary of what the Mueller Report found. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scjessey - do you have a better cite for that exchange ? I'm not hearing it in the video clip, and the title is just a non-CNN user label so meh. It is not in the WaPo transcript. I do see other mentions in tweets, a John Avalon tweet at 2:17 on 24 July, and PodSaveAmerica tweet indicates it was at 1:14. And the phrase is attributed to a member here, plus Schiff said it a couple days before. Just trying to be sure of a solid cite that exchange were the literal words said ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the video description is basically bogus, and I've struck it out with an explanation above. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mueller also stated he was "not familiar" with Fusion GPS or the Steele dossier, didn't know who Corey Lewandowski is - despite being mentioned repeatedly in the report that he supposedly wrote, and gave contradicting reasons why he didn't indict Trump, among other various inconsistencies and memory lapses. There are assuredly more reliable and factual sources than that disastrous hearing. Architeuthidæ (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mueller said that Glenn Simpson was outside his purview, not that he didn’t know what Fusion GPS and the Steele dossier were. Looked through the testimony and can’t find any indication he didn’t know who Lewandowski was, and there were multiple reasons why he didn’t indict. Keep in mind that this is a WP:BLP. O3000 (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mueller: "Not Familiar" With Fusion GPS, "Outside My Purview" It's both. After being asked about Fusion GPS, Mueller replied "I--I'm not familiar with that. I--could you--". After a Republican congressman explained to Mueller the significance of Fusion GPS, and brought up Glenn Simpson, then he said that it was "outside my purview." I admire your willingness to read through that testimony, but the Lewandowski tidbit is covered in reliable sources so we don't have to do that [5]. Yes, he gave different and contradicting reasons why he didn't indict. In any case, I think we can all agree that the Mueller testimony isn't reliable. We should find some reliable sources for this "welcomed and encouraged" wording. Architeuthidæ (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read the transcript. He did not say that he was not familiar with GPS Fusion or the Steele dossier. And no, we do not all agree his testimony isn't reliable. Again, this is a BLP. We must be careful not to make negative statements about living persons without reliable sources. RS do not say what you are claiming. O3000 (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I watched the hearing live last year. Here on Wikipedia, we need to use reliable sources rather than our personal opinions and takeaways from various pdfs on the Internet. Nobody said anything negative about living persons, so we don't need to worry about that. Reliable sources say Mueller was not familiar with Fusion GPS, per my link above. You're getting bogged down in the minutiae. You can rely on the testimony, but here, we need reliable sources for the "welcomed and encouraged" wording. Once someone finds some, we can take a look at it and go from there. Architeuthidæ (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that Mueller is dead? Or are you saying that all your comments about him are not negative. We take BLP seriously here. And I am not bogged down. We have already discussed welcomed and encouraged and it appears most of us are OK with this. O3000 (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get smart with me, please. Obviously Mueller is still alive. If you want to perceive facts such as "Mueller said he was 'not familiar' with Fusion GPS" as negative, that's your prerogative, but we need to discuss facts. If you think you have a legitimate BLP grievance, you are free to run it up the chain and see if it sticks. If the majority are okay with relying on Mueller's testimony, that's fine by me. Just adding my two cents here on the issue. Architeuthidæ (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We also deprecate obstinate insistence from Single Purpose Accounts. O3000 is correct. SPECIFICO talk 21:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We can safely ignore the opinion of any editor who says "Mueller's testimony isn't reliable." That's just absolutely absurd on many levels. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we can go down the personal attack route - I could reply and say that we should ignore opinions about Trump from virulently anti-Trump editors on talk pages related to Trump. But I won't do that. We should just focus on providing reliable sources for improving the article, and make sure we play the ball rather than the man. Editors are free to rely on Bob Mueller and buy his Saint Bob Mueller Prayer Candles. Just as long as we stick with reliable sources, we'll all be on the same page. Architeuthidæ (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Architeuthidæ, it's not a personal attack. Rejection of Mueller comes solely from motivated reasoning and relies on the assumption that facts cease to be facts when they are politically inconvenient. Guy (help!) 23:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it's not a personal attack. In my opinion Architeuthidæ is both right and wrong. It was not a personal attack by en-wiki's narrow definition (much of it necessarily unwritten), which is effectively "If it won't get you sanctioned for NPA violation, it isn't personal attack." Scjessey didn't say "You are an insufferable fool" or something. My advice to editors is to be very conservative in their use of the words "personal attack", because over-assertion enables responses like it's not a personal attack. But we should play the ball not the man as Architeuthidæ says, and I suspect Scjessey knows that. He has no doubt seen "Discuss content, not editors" many times, and he probably has said it himself a few times. Apologies for the diversion. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We do stick with reliable sources, which say Trump "welcomed" and "encouraged" Russia to help his election. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMO "welcomed and encouraged" is factual and sourced, and if we want a direct quote, the Mueller testimony works. Others here have suggested "solicited" or "invited" which are also factual; Trump literally requested Russian interference on live television. I prefer Mueller's own words, but am open to other wording. But we cannot remove the conclusion that Trump - not just his campaign, but Trump himself - welcomed and encouraged Russia to help him in the election. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Welcomed and encouraged" without quotes is a problem because it is a direct lift from the hearing, not the report itself, and does not attribute the phrase. In fact, the phrase originates from a question at the hearing, not the testimony by Mueller (though he answered affirmatively). [6] Sourcing policy probably requires a better indication of where that phrase derives from. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Objective3000 - The Trump remark about Clintons email seems to have some WEIGHT, I suggest you try an add to the Presidential campaign section. It does not belong to the section of the Mueller report. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scjessey and User:BullRangifer - No no no, it is ***not*** OK to just make stuff up or to present other events as a quote from the report. For the line in question starting "The report states" the article is presenting this as one of the exact quotes from the report, in the section about the report. There is no such phrase there. If you want to mention any of these non-report things above they need to go into a different location, be attributed to the person who is the source, and provide V. Plus be of enough WEIGHT to be DUE a mention here. It is apparent that the phrase is not going to get V or get a mod to something more accurate so I am going to again delete that part of the article line as lacking V (because it is false). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry. I think MelanieN summed it up best. BTW, you might want to follow policy and not just delete the content, but improve it per WP:Preserve. That's what we are supposed to do when possible. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Markbassett: You're wrong. "Welcomed and encouraged" is fully supported by reliable sources. Having it without the quotation marks addresses your concern. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scjessey: It might be helpful if you offered a source to support your point, rather than simply telling another editor they are wrong. At the very least, this raises a legitimate question of what the proper attribution should be here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikieditor19920: I don't need to provide a source, because one was already provided by another editor (example). Trump literally asked Russia to hack Clinton's emails on live television, which was covered by every media outlet on the planet. We use the word "encouraged" in our text, but any synonym of the word (invited? begged?) would suffice. We don't need attribution because we are saying "welcomed and encouraged" in Wikipedia's voice, as part of our lead summary. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scjessey: The question is whether "welcomed and encouraged" is properly attributed to the report, not whether it's the WP:TRUTH. I don't see that source supporting this attribution, and the press conference is not relevant to the issue of the report itself. I don't think that a phrase lifted from the hearings should be attributed to the report if it doesn't actually contain that language. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't saying that the report contains the specific phrase. We are saying that the phrase summarizes the findings of the report. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But it's clearly implied by the use of the phrase in the current text. "Welcomed and encouraged" is lifted from the subsequent hearings, but the current text seems to suggest via an WP:INTEXT attribution that it's from the report. Since it's not, that's clearly a problem. There is a technical problem with how this phrase is currently presented and attributed. Borrowing something from the hearings and implying it's from the report might actually be WP:SYNTH. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then fix the attribution. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BullRangifer, Don't get aggressive with me for raising an issue. I don't necessarily know what the most agreeable wording is. There is currently a problem with what's presented. We have a possible discrepancy between what the nominal author of a report says, and what the report actually says, and we can't afford to be sloppy on this by treating both sources (the report itself and the author's later statements) as if they are one in the same, esp. since the phrase "welcomed and encouraged" didn't actually come from the author. I think the entire phrase should be scrapped in favor of whatever the report says. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal We leave the phrase "welcomed and encouraged," and include an explanatory note indicating the origin of the phrase, with a possible quote of the Mueller-Schiff exchange. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditor19920, no aggression intended, just suggested one way to fix the situation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure me diving in and implementing my idea of what's correct will have long-standing effect on this page. I raise it here because some kind of consensus would obviousy be best. I think an explanatory citation note will require little to no modification of the current text and provide the attribution that's needed, so I'd be curious how people feel about it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a no on the citation note in the lead. It simply isn't needed. The explanation is in the body of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that "welcomed and encouraged" is a phrase directly lifted from the source. The attribution can't be in the body of the article, it needs to be in the same line as either an WP:INTEXT or a citation. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scjessey No, the line and section is about what is specifically in the report Volume I. I think we’re all clear that “welcomed and encouraged” is not literally in the report and not in the cites the editor had, and apparently not referring to the report. Someone just edited in a false quote there is all. It’s only in the scrutiny of cite reduction trying to see which could be removed yet support the line that fails V became apparent. Possibly ‘encourage’ is referring to the earlier campaign remarks about the 30,000 missing emails rather the report content. Possibly it is referring to the framing Schumer said in the later hearing rather than the report content. The point is, those would not belong in this line and should not be attributed to the report or Mueller. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:MrX - sigh. I see you have reinstated the “welcomed” phrase, but did not provide a support. No, it is not enough to simply remove the quotes, as this is not from the report nor the prior reviews of what the report said, and does not even seem to be about the report. Removing quotes just shifts it from false V to lacking V. Procedural notes

Please note WP:V lead “Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.” And in the BURDEN section “Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.”.

As the restorer, please provide such a source which is reviewing the report and says this is in there. *Not* just any cite with the phrase such as a cite that says it as a truth in general, or happened in 2016, or as a later remark by Schumer — but one that is reviewing the report and so meets V “The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article.”

Or move the phrase to the Presidential campaign section or later hearings section or something where it is supported. Or just follow the V instructions and delete it here as it was a bad quote. I will tag it as citation needed. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Markbassett: Phleeebpt. You made a bad edit and I fixed it by removing the quote marks, consistent with what several editors have said in this discussion. Scjessey quoted Mueller's testimony. MelanieN made a strong argument in support of the material. JzG advised that the problem is solved by removing quotes. Muboshgu cited two sources and Space4Time3Continuum2x cited four. You do realize that most of America heard Trump ask Russia for help, right? - MrX 🖋 12:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is amazing to me that a couple of editors think that by saying the same thing over and over again, it will change the facts. "Welcomed and encouraged" (without the quotes) is WELL SOURCED and the language is supported by a majority of editors here. It's time to move on. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem seems like we're having two different conversations. No one is disputing that there is a source for the phrase "welcomed and encouraged." The issue that MB raised and that is valid is that this source is not the report itself, which is what the article text suggests. Yes, this is nitpicky, but for the lead of probably one of the most read articles on WP, I don't think that's inappropriate. This has nothing to do with the WP:TRUTH of whether this happened, this is a technical sourcing/attribution issue for language directly lifted from an external source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scjessey Supported for elsewhere, but not for the place it is. Yes, it is amazing to see that you keep repeating ‘in the report’ is supported. Giving cites that support such will do, saying it is supported doesn’t provide V. BUT frankly this is just defending a *false quote* that was shockingly bad cite practice. Someone put it in although all four of the cites said no such thing, so they simply weren’t looking at the things they were citing. It seems just from other places, not in nor about the report, so does not fit here. “The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article.” Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Welcomed and encouraged" (without the quotes) IS NOT A QUOTE, Mark. It is OUR language that is supported by reliable sources, and it is a perfect summary of how the report characterizes the Trump campaign's position on foreign interference. What part of that don't you understand? Removing the quotes fixed it. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FIXED. You see how easy it was, Mark? It took less fuss and edits than your "citation needed" tag. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:MrX - Citation still Needed. By removing the quotes you only ‘fixed’ it into unsupported. You still need to either remove it or meet BURDEN and provide a clear support. The two added do not do. The NYTimes.com cite has nothing relevant, it is about the hearing being disappointing, which has nothing close to mentioning welcoming or encouraging, even Schumer saying it. The abcnewsgo cite also will not do. It is at least about the report and substantial. In it Bruggeman clearly supports the same as the four other cites did - a quote “the Campaign expected to benefit electorally”. The closest otherwise is Bruggeman gives background mentioning “In July 2016, around the time Trump...” but there he says the Mueller finding is that the campaign was planning a press strategy for more Wikileaks. This would support ‘the report said they planned to benefit from Wikileaks’ but does not support ‘the report said they welcomed and encouraged Russian interference’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scjessey: "Welcomed and encouraged" is not language original to an editor's summary, it is a quote from a question posed to Mueller at a congressional hearing. The phrase is exactly the same as the question shown in the source. We can't pretend that a phrase wasn't lifted when it clearly is. All that needs to be done here is add a footnote to the exchange, and it will be properly attributed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter where the language originated from. It is perfectly acceptable language that I have already provided a source for, even though it isn't necessary. And of course, we do not need to do it in the lead because it is already in the body. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scjessey - Nope. First, it *does* matter where the language is coming from - the attribution it should have is the issue here. And no, the cite you gave to the Washington post is yet another that does not clearly support the article line about the Mueller report "The report says" or "it details how" attribution for "welcomed and encouraged". It nicely snapshots where instead it is 'Philip Bump in WashingtonPost.com' says about the 2016 IC findings "Mueller’s investigation bolstered those findings and demonstrated ways in which Trump and his campaign aided or encouraged those interference efforts, even if unwittingly."

Look - "welcomed and encouraged" was a false quote, acknowledge that it was wrongly placed (at best) and starts with less than zero credibility as what should be here. Removing the quotation marks does not magically undo that it came from a *false quote*. It seems to be about the 2016 campaign, or perhaps from the hearings -- and removing the quote marks does not magically make it about the report. We've got five cites explicitly and prominently quoting the report that the Trump "Campaign expected it would benefit electorally", and instead pushing 'welcome and encouraged' is just not paraphrasing this or even trying to.

The article went from three redundant cites to now three cites that are bad for "The report says" and "it details how". The NYT cite is about the hearing and nothing there. The ABC cite is about the report and nicely substantial including closing with "Campaign expected it would benefit" with in the middle that authors view 'the Mueller finding is that the campaign was planning a press strategy for more Wikileaks'. The WaPo cite about Trump tweet indirectly acknowledging the Wikileaks (amplified by the media) helped his election. Could be said as a WaPo statement but not proper in a line that attributes it as "The report says" and "it details how". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely disagree with you, Mark. A fair summary of the Mueller Report is that Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged foreign interference. We do not need to cite that language as long is it represents what a preponderance of reliable sources say about the report, which it absolutely does. The removal of the quotation marks was a satisfactory solution, and that's all there is to it. A majority of editors agree with me. Time to move on before you get into the realm of disruption. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Markbassett, I have to agree with Scjessey. Without the quote marks, the words are an excellent description of the findings in the Mueller Report. It's time to move on. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a perfectly acceptable summary -- it's also not our summary. We are ignoring the fact that the quote is directly lifted from the congressional hearings and not offered elsewhere. Pretending the phrase is an original summary written by a WP editor and removing attribution via quotation marks doesn't solve the problem that MarkB identified, it makes this WP:PLAGIARISM. This shouldn't be acceptable on any page, let alone one of the most viewed on WP. If we cannot agree on a new original summary, then an attribution via a footnote should be provided to indicate the source of the phrase. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Three common words is not plagiarism. O3000 (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the measure for plagiarism. "Welcomed and encouraged" is a distinct phrase, originating from one particular source (or exchange, for that matter) that appears nowhere else. Pop that phrase into a search engine along with "Trump" and "Mueller" and all of the results will reference the Schiff-Mueller exchange. Any basic plagiarism-checking program would catch this. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I propose "encouraged and welcomed" (without the quotes). TOTALLY DIFFERENT. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that, if "welcomed and encouraged" (without the quotemarks) is the best (concisest and most accurate) paraphrase, it matters not that it was heard in the hearings. We are not going to scour the transcript for language to avoid in this article. But if reversing the word order will allow us to put this to bed, I'm all for it. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I propose ~~the article~~ that any statements of what “The report says” actually use the language of the cites about what the report says — which can be the commonly offered true quote from the report “the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally” (from Wikileaks). That simple and honest. The false quote was bad information and trying to somehow squint hard and keep it is inappropriate. V was failed, V says to delete such. That simple. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a quote. It's not a quote. This is tiresome. O3000 (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was presented a a direct quote from the report. That false quote was bad information. Trying to keep it when there is a clearly present alternative that was in the cites and widely reported is inappropriate. This would be substituting factual information with misattributed plagiarism or editor creative writing. V is fairly direct and simple for poorly sourced material: delete the phrase. Perhaps time to RFC between false quote vaguely almost-supported versus true quote widely reported ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've lost me. There are no quote marks. It is not a quote. We fixed that. What it may have been is completely irrelevant. And it is clearly not plagiarism. Look up the word. Indeed, you seem to be arguing that we must use exact wording but cannot use exact wording. O3000 (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look, there is a reason it was quoted in the first place, and that's because the phrase is widely known as being attributed to Schiff's question to Mueller on whether the Russians "welcomed and encouraged" assistance. We can either bury our heads in the sand and now pretend that it wasn't, present another source that is not quoting Schiff using that exact same phrase without, or we can attribute the phrase to Schiff. Option one is not actually a legitimate option. We can keep "welcomed and encouraged," but we just need attribution. If I knew how to format footnotes I'd have done it myself already. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How many times does this need to be said? It doesn't MATTER if the phrase is associated with the hearing. On this article, we are using it as a summary of the reports findings. It needs no additional support that what it gets in the references, and it certainly doesn't need a footnote that would misleadingly suggest we are using those words because of Adam Schiff. A significant majority of editors are fine with this language. As I indicated previously, continued objection in the face of a clear consensus can only be considered disruptive. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Objective3000 It was a false quote. If you’re lost, try looking at the top of this section where that is shown. Someone put it in without ever looking at the four cites which gave clear support for a *different* phrase. Removing quotes magically moves it to an unsupported statement and false attribution, which means still failing V for what “The report says”. It was bad information, it’s still bad information. And no, User:Scjessey, a vote does not eliminate V for what is a factually false statement. Now I suggest that for a line about what “The report says”, a NYT cite to the Hearing and a WaPo 2016 cite about the IC report just won’t do. I will put in the ‘Campaign expected’ quote that was prominent in all four original cites, using Mueller and the new ABC cite. If there is something more that can be supported it can follow that. Up in the 2016 campaign section or as a hearing remark maybe - but it just doesn’t fit here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to your assumption, the cited NYT article attributes the statement that (in the NYT's summary wording) the Trump campaign welcomed the Kremlin sabotage effort to Mueller's report, rather than basing in on something Mueller or Schumer said at the hearing. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:HaeB the NYT article again supports the dominance of the direct quote “expected it would benefit electorally”. But really it is summarizing the hearing, not the report, and discussing the points the Democrats made. The section you refer to seems to reflect the Schiff framing mentioned above in this thread though without mention of “Trump” welcoming, or that either he or his Campaign doing “encouraged”, or giving a specific attribution. “Mr. Mueller concluded that there was “insufficient evidence” to determine that the president or his aides had engaged in a criminal conspiracy with the Russians, even though the Trump campaign welcomed the Kremlin sabotage effort and “expected it would benefit electorally” from the hackings and leaks of Democratic emails.” The line “the report says” factually could give the “expected” quote, which is what wasvactually widely reported. When we have that line specifically and clearly reported in many reviews of the report, it’s just inappropriate and factually false to cobble up partial supports to state a Schiff summation at another venue as something “The report says”. A line from Schiff would need to give attribution ‘At the hearing, Schiff said’ per WP:PARTISAN. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Markbasset: Please read and inwardly digest WP:LISTEN. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scjessey- seems too ironic for you to give me LISTEN after not listening. After all, you reinstated the phrase as a direct quote of the report the on the first day of this, in TALK giving the basis that in the hearing Mueller agreed with that question. Now I have reread the guideline LISTEN, will you please read the core *policy* V, noting that I cited bits here, and the explanatory bit COPO? Then we can perhaps seek to improve the article with factually correct phrasing and good support in cites and policy rather than just things we make up and vote-counting. Or we can go to DR. I have no difficulty listening to several editors liking the phrase as a direct quote and few remarking on it being untrue as stated, simply find that sad and not actionable. Now, what is your preference between pursuing better and DR ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break for easier editing

Mark, I am distressed to see that you added your own version to the article [7] in defiance of the clear consensus here. You know better. In this discussion I see six people (not counting myself) in favor of "welcomed and encouraged", two others who suggested keeping the same sense but using synonyms, and at most three who objected to it. You started this discussion ten days ago; you need to respect the process you started. My own thought summarizing this discussion: I am perfectly comfortable with "welcomed and encouraged," but as a possible compromise, how about if we simply say "welcomed" without "encouraged"? That conveys the same sense, has a source directly supporting that the Mueller report said so, and gets around the whole argument here about where the phrase "welcomed and encouraged" comes from. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~A Solomonic solution. Yes!~~ -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm strongly opposed, necessarily, but I disagree that it would convey the same sense. "Welcomed" is passive and "encouraged" is active. And frankly I don't see a need to pursue compromise when we already have consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss is our beacon. May his wisdom be our guide.

Solomonic is not a good thing. Encouraged is significant. "Rusher if you're listening..." etc. SPECIFICO talk 20:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Let's follow the consensus. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:MelanieN The line has been in flux during this, so no need for distress. Otherwise, perhaps you forget WP:V and WP:COPO. Yes, sadly many have indeed been fast to place/reinstate a false quote and then seek so hard to somehow keep the words despite that history and despite the clear and clean alternative of another statement with WEIGHT in this context. My first choice was to have nothing as simply V, but given the apparent desire to say welcome or support I offered that quote. And if people wanted to say more I said they could place it before or after if they have V and WEIGHT. Mentioned in all this there seems clear supports for saying ELSEWHERE the ‘welcomed and encouraged’ in an honest manner as it factually is something prominent elsewhere. But not here, because it is talking about something else. Seems time to DR, yes? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a quote if there are no quote marks. And, DR is useless for AP articles. O3000 (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But you acknowledge it was false quote, and despite that history are in pursuit of keeping the words? Look, I can see at least four clean and factually true edit alternatives here that follow WP policy, but saying welcomed and encouraged just is not pursuing encyclopedic goals. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is when it's not in quotes, which looks like consensus to me. O3000 (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a consensus for "welcomed and encouraged" (without the quotes). Mark's insistence to ignore this consensus and continue to disrupt the project by repeatedly making the same, failed argument is troubling. At this point, "fake quote" is starting to sound an awful lot like fake news. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Objective3000 Make a better choice. It remains a false quote and bad information when it does not come from the source that the line states it does. This phrase has been acknowledged as factually comes from a different event from a partisan source that WP policy says should be properly attributed. So the 'not this' side of the scale has shown facts, greater WEIGHT, cites galore that explicitly and prominently give the other line as common, the bad history this edit has, WP directives in V to delete, etcetera. The 'keeping it' side has ...what ??? -- a couple cites about the hearing instead of the report that do not use the phrase but can be squinted at really hard and can be imagined might be paraphrased if we ignore the clearly present alternatives ? Seriously, how can you present that removing quotemarks magically makes it OK ? The case for nothing is stronger than this, as is the case for 'expected' or for honestly portraying where 'welcomed' was said and by who. Make some better choice here, because I don't think it possible to make some better case for the 'keeping it' side. Markbassett (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How can something that is not a quote be a false quote? That's a strawman argument. O3000 (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Objective3000 hmm “false quote” *is* too mild, since we are discussing quotation marks that were wrong versus now knowingly giving bad information as to meaning and source while avoiding clearer portrayal of actual fact. That’s because “false quote” seems commonly referring to an honest confusion of who said it or the exact wording, thinking some phrase really was said. False attribution is a cleaner description of improper quotation marks, when I AGF. To describe the proposed knowingly doing unclear attribution and/or asserting a paraphrase seems like it should get a more vehement “Deceptive attribution” and “fake” information. Since the phrase is about something else it remains bad info in either case if placed here, and whether the info is portrayed as an exact quote or portrayed as close to literal is just deciding whether the bad attribution is clearly wrong or is being deceptive about it. Really, there are honest things strongly supported about the report, and there are honest things strongly supported about what Schiff said in the hearing. But to state Schiff's words as being something in the report and support by a cobble together SYNTH of partial items just is not a good choice. Markbassett (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly I am ignorant as I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. O3000 (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Objective3000 We're indented to your question of how it can be a false quote, so discussing that. It was a false quote, with quotation marks. Upon reflection, "false quote" usually refers to an urban myth or honest mistake -- and a more precise label for here is that with quotes it was a False attribution, and now removing quote marks the proper terms would be a Deceptive attribution and fake information. Saying False quote would be a close synonym but is too mild. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you still WP:REHASHING this? This is disruptive in the extreme. - MrX 🖋 20:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:MrX - ??? What are you going on about ??? Unclear what part you're referring to and doesn't seem to fit.

In the subthread you indented this as part of re using the term "false quote", there was movement two days ago and nothing since so rehash seems inappropriate.

If you meant about the overall thread re the line failing V -- Obviously lots of various inputs in a couple weeks, many diverse subthreads, and several edits / proposals. But nothing at that level since a new Melanie N proposal about 11 March, so again 'rehash' seems a bit inappropriate. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed trimming

"Racial views" and "Allegations of sexual misconduct" both have main articles already. So is it all right with people here if I trim those sections down to a paragraph or two? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. No need to repeat information that is already in a separate article. That should also help with the size issues here. Mgasparin (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way, congratulations to everybody here for finally reaching a consensus on how to trim. We finally got the article size below 400k for the first time since February 2019. Mgasparin (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the sexual misconduct stuff has never been important to the public, except as it relates to the Billy Bush tape/Wikileaks timing and the Jailing of Michael Cohen. So I think there's lots that can be trimmed there. The racial "views" stuff, at least post 2011, is the core of Trump's brand and political success. I suppose the "squad go back" thing is insignificant, but I suggest you try to keep most of the post-2011, possibly with summary sources that give an overview of the significance to Trump's narrative to his core demographic voter groups. SPECIFICO talk 00:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, trim.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Err, race has absolutely nothing to do with Trump's "brand" or "success." A fairly disgusting remark that should be retracted. Architeuthidæ (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be opposed to reducing 'Racial views' by a paragraph or two. Paraphrasing what SPECIFICO correctly points out, Trump's racial views are core to his political brand. Maybe the last paragraph can be removed. Possibly the second paragraph can be condensed a bit. I think the 'sexual misconduct' section can probably be condensed to two paragraphs. - MrX 🖋 18:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do either of you have any evidence to back up this inflammatory claim that "race" is "core to his political brand"? We really need to be careful here when attacking politicians in this manner, especially with wild allegations. Architeuthidæ (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support MelanieN's proposal: those sections can be effectively trimmed to a few lines, notwithstanding the political exploitation of those themes. I would add the "Foundation" section to heavy trimming candidates; this has not been a central pillar of Trump's life, and the dedicated article covers it extensively enough for curious readers. — JFG ^talk 09:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to work on a draft of the trimming here on talk, as it's evident that the trim is agreeable but that there is disagreement as to what and how to trim. SPECIFICO talk 14:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I trimmed the sexual misconduct section since that seemed to be uncontroversial. Another 5900 bytes and 12 templates gone! with no loss of meaningful content. I will work on a proposed trimming of the racial views section and propose it here before implementing it. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, JFG. The Foundation section is currently four fat paragraphs and 19 templates. All of that information is available at the linked main article so this could be majorly trimmed without damage to this biography. I may work on that first. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That one was pretty easy. Another 3600 bytes and 6 templates gone. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I like what you did on the sexual misconduct accusations. I think the "racial views" will benefit from talk page discussion, because there seems to be dissent as to the significance of the underlying events. SPECIFICO talk 20:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again at the "racial views" section I don't see much hope for a major trim. Multiple individual incidents, each already described very briefly so no trimming there - and it wouldn't be easy to come up with criteria for which ones to remove entirely. So I am not going to attempt that and will look for easier/less controversial areas to trim. Looking particularly for sections that already have a "main article" link. There has been so much splitting and forking from this article; since those other articles exist we should be able to reduce duplicative coverage in this one. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think you should trim the 8 paragraphs down to one or two. I agree with MrX for once about only trim it by one or two. Perhaps the opinion of Political Science Quarterly as lowest WEIGHT ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we also get someone to fix the spelling on hot mic? Calling it "hot mike" makes it look unprofessional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5f80:f340:d35:ed53:ca23:c7c4 (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. O3000 (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New image

CURRENT IMAGE KEPT

There is clear consensus to retain the current image. Those in favor argued that it was too old, but the majority felt that the article should use the official portrait per convention and that the official portrait was of superior quality. (non-admin closure) Sdkb (talk) 06:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Current image (2017)

Proposed replacement (2020)

There should be an updated image in the infobox. It has been over 3 years since the present one was taken. My proposed new one on right. TrailBlzr (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "official portrait" is what is supposed to be in the infobox, per convention. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other active politicians with official portraits have more recent images in their infoboxes. Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders for example. These cases seem more analogous to Trump than former presidents who are either dead or long-retired. TrailBlzr (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the convention for presidents. Besides, Biden doesn't have an "official portrait" right now as he doesn't have a role in government. I don't know about Sanders, but what goes on at one article does not determine what happens at another. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to start by taking a look at Current Consensus item 1 for past three discussions here on the subject. For American Presidents generally we go with their official portraits, for example Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George H. W. Bush. PackMecEng (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, use official portrait. I'd likely say that even if the alternative weren't almost identical. His jacket is a bit straighter in the official portrait, presumably because it was less spontaneous. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, use official portrait. The Sanders TALK archive 19 was mentioning should use official photo, but that the photo was 12 Years old so they went IAR. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the official portrait. Trump hasn't changed so much in 3 years that updating the image would noticeably improve the article. As far as quality goes, the new image looks less professional, almost candid. Mgasparin (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd looks ugly. 23:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:AA (talk)

Agree with convention on using official portraits -- by far the more recognizable image. Also, lighting on the left one is worse, as to be expected when comparing a staged professional photograph with one that seems not so. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The one with an American flag seems more fitting, as for most federal representatives. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the one on the left. RHS photo is unflattering. SPECIFICO talk 22:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The right one looks brighter and should be used unless we can brighten up the left one Dq209 (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the one on the left his "official presidential portrait?" If so let's not second guess POTUS. SPECIFICO talk 16:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support the image in the left is very very old. We should use any recent image.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It says that the current image is from 2017 but I can find the image in a 2019 version of this article. See [8]. I guess there was an image with the same file name? Is it possible?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, that's why I said in my comment above that it is very very old. I saw it in a 2009 version of this article and I thought that it is from 2009. I didn't know that it is from 2017. If I knew I would have said "old" without "very very".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given hat we use official photos for most politicians where possible, the left is preferable. Guy (help!) 22:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reversion of date additions

I just wanted to explain my reasoning behind reverting this edit. The paragraph has been assembled to make narrative sense, but the addition of all the date (none of which are important) made it bounce all over the place in chronological distress. I believe the restored version is perfectly acceptable. The dates add nothing of value, and in an article that needs trimming we can ill afford to add valueless data. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scjessey: They aren't valueless and are fairly standard on politician articles. "During his presidency" for the travel ban is so broad it hurts; you could've at least kept "In the early months of his presidency". But oh well.

Literally every single edit I've made to this article has been reverted at this point, all of which were benign (ranging from a year in the short description to the presence of an image caption).

Now I feel like I have to justify every slight touch I make to the vase that is this article. Will you let me re-link "racist" in the lead section? · • SUM1 • · (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I don't really plan on editing the article anymore. This is just a test to see if such an edit will get through. I made the mistake of taking long-established conventions for other politician articles that went without a hitch to this article. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather you didn't relink "racist", because it simply isn't necessary. Everyone knows what racist means. Sorry if it seems like everything you are doing is being reverted, but it is fair to say that we have such a long article we need to keep it as trimmed as possible, and the dates you added really didn't have any useful value. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussion

This is just to alert all interested editors that there is a discussion ongoing at Talk:Veracity of statements by Donald Trump concerning the inclusion of coronavirus misinformation. (The relevant thread is SARS-2, add ?) Thanks! Mgasparin (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of coronavirus in lead

I really think the lead needs something like "Trump was also president during the coronavirus crisis." I made the change on Saturday but was reverted. p b p 12:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - lots of people are in power over the planet while the pandemic is ongoing. There's no reason to highlight this one instance. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably also be mentioned in Xi's article and the head of government in Italy's too, for starters. p b p 14:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. This is the top-level biography of Trump and the lead already includes too much detail about the presidency part of his life. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You consider ONE SENTENCE about a global pandemic that has shut down a country of 320 million "too much detail"? p b p 14:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for the lead of this article, which is about an entire life of a man who was widely known and widely written about for decades before he stumbled into the presidency less than four years ago. It's just amazing how many things about his presidency are just too monumentally important to omit from this lead.

By the way, lead summarizes body, so we couldn't add this to the lead until it's mentioned somewhere in the body. A browser search of the article for "virus" finds zero occurrences. But I would still oppose this in the lead, even after that's taken care of. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Mandruss, what I'm getting from your comments is that you had a lot of gripes with the article before my proposal and you're taking it out on my proposal. And, yes, coronavirus is easily one of the 5-10 most important things of his presidency, and if you devote 1-2 sentences to each of the most important things, that's only 1-2 paragraphs. p b p 18:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of coronavirus in the body

Shouldn't this article contain at least a paragraph about Trump and the coronavirus? p b p 18:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's a global health crisis that implies nothing specific about Trump. — JFG ^talk 19:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. That's why we don't mention WW2 in the Winston Churchill article. SPECIFICO talk 21:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, Ha. The difficult bit is showing how this is any more or less inept than anything else he's done. Guy (help!) 22:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how to avoid disruption of talk pages by fringe POV nonsense. We are going to need to address this. It's shutting down progress on many articles. To respond directly to your point, I have long said we should be looking for summary analysis of fundamental factors that come up over and over. Each instance may be WP:NOTNEWS but the larger context needs encyclopedic coverage. We're beginning to see respected analysts address this, for example in the recent book A Very Stable Genius. SPECIFICO talk 14:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Trump's response to the pandemic should obviously be covered briefly in this article. Otherwise, we need to remove Jerusalem, Wrestling, Cuba, Acting, Talk shows, Miss Universe, and a whole lot more. It doesn't belong in the lead now, but it may later depending on the impact of Trump's involvement. - MrX 🖋 22:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My sense of the RS reporting and analysis is there are two significant points. First, his initial reaction to the virus' spread, which is roughly 60 days ago, was denial. He did not heed advice that this would become a global crisis, and he did not deploy or strengthen the capabilities of the US to prepare and to intervene overseas, as e.g. his nemesis Obama did in the Ebola incident. Second, as he became aware of the spread of the pandemic, he sought to suppress information and to minimize government response, for fear it would weaken the stock market or impair his reelection prospects in other ways. Consistent with these approaches, he appointed inexperienced and ignorant staff to handle it for him, and only in the past few days has appeared willing to take the lead of medical experts. In part this shift appears to be due to the spectacle of local governments upstaging him and providing leadership in the crisis. @JFG: FYI, the disease did reach the USA some time ago, so "global" no longer excludes Trump's domain. It would be great if you'd read up on the RS discussions of his leadership in this crisis and help us write some great article and lead text. SPECIFICO talk 23:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is lots of Trump content in 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States. There should certainly be some coronavirus content here. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"He appointed ignorant staff?" comments are laughable in the amount of speculation, with no facts to back them up. I encourage all reasonable editors to disregard above analyis if they add a corona virus section. With all due respect to SPECIFICO, it seems this user has been on wikipedia a long time with a noted history of one-sided political edits. This user should honestly be blocked by administrators from making edits on any page that has to do with Donald Trump. Amorals (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Amorals[reply]

This article certainly has to have Trump's declaration of a national emergency, and perhaps his claims that coronavirus was fake news. @JFG: Just because coronavirus involves a lot of people doesn't automatically discount it being mentioned here; what you're saying is less an argument for why coronavirus shouldn't be mentioned here and more one why Trump shouldn't be mentioned at the coronavirus article. p b p 04:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Amorals: You were good for the first half of that comment. Comment on content, not contributors. There is a place for such remarks and this isn't it. If you feel an ArbCom enforcement request is warranted, follow this link and file one. Make further comments like that and you will risk being the subject of one. I have posted a discretionary sanctions alert on your talk page; please read it, understand it, and take it seriously. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the first half of Amorals' comment was not helpful. I prefaced my summary with saying that's my impression of RS narratives. I could instead have written article text with citations, but that would have been way premature. There are ample citations for encyclopedic text that reflects what I wrote, should there ultimately be consensus for article text along those lines. That would not itself be article text because it omits background facts and detail, but my approach has long been to moot rough sketches on article talk pages rather than jump to insert recent developments into the article text. That would have wasted editor time and attention, and it's not good for the workplace here. SPECIFICO talk 15:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is clear that Trump's response to COVID-19 will be regarded as the most consequential act of his entire presidency. We're going to be seeing thousands of deaths, many of which could've been avoided, and dramatic economic effects. With that said, we are still in the early stages and anything we put in the article will necessarily have to evolve more or less continuously. Perhaps we should start with something simple, with a sentence along these lines:

Trump's handling of the initial stages of the coronavirus pandemic drew criticism from ~~EVERYONE!~~ medical professionals and public officials.

I am not suggesting these specific words (which I pulled out of my ass, basically), but rather I am suggesting this is the sort of level of coverage we should be considering at this early stage. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which section would you suggest? Presidency>Domestic policy>Economy and trade? A one-sentence section would seem strange, and unwarranted. (You've blown your British cover. The British word is arse.) ―Mandruss ☎ 14:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at this article for the first time and I was shocked that it did not contain any discussion of the president's handling of the Coronavirus outbreak. I believe it is a serious lack in the article. At this point, while we are in the early stages of the epidemic, it is already one of the most important issues of his administration. Without ignoring the potential horrors to come, we have already seen several border shutdowns initiated by the president, major national addresses by the president, the appointment of personnel to deal with them, enormous fluctuations in the markets coincident with these national addresses. And the presidents actions to prepare or not prepare for the infection have already had large impacts on the country. At a minimum, we could mention that Trump was president during the outbreak and link to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States David s graff (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Photo Caption: Trump in 2017 EditQwerty (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)EditQwerty EditQwerty (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done It's pretty obvious that's Trump. No need to state the obvious here. Mgasparin (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]