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

Article milestones Date Process Result June 2, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed February 12, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed September 17, 2016 Good article nominee Not listed May 25, 2017 Good article nominee Not listed December 2, 2018 Good article nominee Not listed July 15, 2019 Good article nominee Not listed August 31, 2019 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 29, 2020 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Former good article nominee

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government B‑class 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. 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). Business B‑class Mid‑importance 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Donald Trump B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Donald Trump 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.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. New York City B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism B‑class High‑importance 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American / Political parties B‑class High‑importance 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as High-importance). United States: Television / Presidential elections / Presidents / Government B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance). Template:WP1.0 Television B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Other talk page banners
Template:Vital article

Hello,

Since we seem incapable of deciding this as a collective issue, I'm seeking individual consensus for adding each of the following links to the lead. The justification is the same in each case: these are specific, meaningful, and notable things that a typical reader may want to learn more about, not generic terms like "protectionist" or "nationalist".

• 2017–2019 special counsel investigation → 2017–2019 special counsel investigation
• Russia interfered in the 2016 election → Russia interfered in the 2016 election
• travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries → travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries
• policy of family separations → policy of family separations
• individual health insurance mandate → individual health insurance mandate
• Affordable Care Act → Affordable Care Act
• Trans-Pacific Partnership → Trans-Pacific Partnership
• Paris Agreement → Paris Agreement
• Iran nuclear deal → Iran nuclear deal
• 2024 presidential election → 2024 presidential election

Please discuss these individually, and not collectively, since consensus may be different from link to link. My position is that we are here to be helpful to readers, and these links are helpful. There are no Easter egg links here, nor would they lead to a sea of blue. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I will speak collectively, and say I agree with all of the the removals. We do the reader a disservice by providing link after link after link, where they feel they have to endlessly branch off elsewhere to find what they're looking for. Let the the readers actually read and not click. Links, where appropriate, can be made in sub-sections. At the lead stands as of 6:55am California time, I like it. A few links to some prominent names and intuitions. ValarianB (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find this line of reasoning completely bizarre. The lead right now is only useful if you already have some understanding of what all these unlinked terms mean. For example, the lead currently says "the Iran nuclear deal." This deal is not mentioned again until thousands of words later in the Iran subsection, where it is not referred to as the "Iran nuclear deal", but instead "the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action." How is a reader supposed to understand what "the Iran nuclear deal" is supposed to refer to in the lead unless they already know? Are we supposed to send them hunting through the 16,000-word text for references to Iran so they can deduce that the JCPOA is the same thing as "the Iran nuclear deal" previously mentioned? How is that helpful?

Variations on this logic apply to all of these terms. Take the Affordable Care Act; what if readers haven't heard of it? What if they know it as Obamacare? Keeping these terms unlinked means the text is only comprehensible to those who already know what these terms mean! We are not doing anyone a disservice by giving them the option to learn more about things they might not know about! That's what we're here for! —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leads seem to be written with linking to other pages in mind. Why? Because we're uncertain about the information contained in this article? Take this sentence, for example: In foreign policy, Trump initiated a trade war with China and withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. We could say that "Trump initiated a trade war with China and withdrew the U.S. from international trade, climate, and disarmament agreements" or something along those lines (disarmament). That would or should induce the reader who wants to know more about Trump's trade etc. policies to look at the body / presidency / foreign policy. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So we should add vagueness and reduce specificity in order to force readers to spend their time scrolling through a 16,000-word article hunting for information, rather than just linking to full articles with reasonably-sized leads that a reader can click on any time they wish? Leads are not written with linking to other pages in mind, but they are often the only part of an article a reader reads (per years of research by WMF). We owe it to readers to make the lead comprehensible on its own without needing the rest of the article for context. Many of the proposed links above are proper nouns that should be linked per the Manual of Style. By my reading of MOS:UL and MOS:OL, the lead is currently severely underlinked. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no vagueness, it is called "readability". Articles become unreadable when every other word takes you to a different topic. Introduce, then expand. This is very, very basic Freshman Composition. ValarianB (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that these words do describe different topics, and they only "take" the reader there if the reader chooses to be taken there by clicking on a link. It's also unhelpful hyperbole to say that I'm proposing "every other word" be linked. This is not a Freshman Composition which we expect to be read all the way through, in order, like a well-crafted op-ed. It's an online encyclopedia article. Almost every other high-profile article (such as those on the 44 other US presidents, most directly comparable) has many more links in the lead than this one; this is well-established precedent and while local consensus here may override it, I'm baffled by the hostility to less than a dozen simple links to specific, non-fungible things. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The average reader (and the average editor) does not want to hunt through this massive article to find a tiny paragraph of text about the individual insurance mandate, for example. They just want to know what it is. There is nothing wrong with gonig to a new article. Why do we want to keep people here? How does it benefit them? If their journey takes them to a different Trump page, then it takes them there. All the Trump articles are good enough that we should be encouraging people to seek out the spinoffs that go into more detail, rather than hunting down that same link in the body, an unnecessary step that wastes time.

The article does not become unreadable with a lot of blue in the lead, and what is being proposed here is much more reasonable than what you seem to be saying. I'm inclined to believe, based on experience, that the average reader does not care how many links are in the article. However, editors of this page, arbitrarily IMO, despise blue in the lead. As an example, the article January 6 United States Capitol attack has tons of links. Adding these links wouldn't even come close to the number of links and citations in the lead on that page. Either links to separate articles or section links in the lead solve this problem, but something should be implemented. No more searching through a long article to realize that the thing you were looking for is only covered in minimal detail, or, better yet, scrolling down and ending up clicking on the same link that you would have if it were in the lead. Cessaune (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The extreme link removal was a worthwhile experiment, but IMO a failed one. The whole point of a Wiki is to allow articles to be linked, and build on each other. I get that editors here want users to read the full article, but we can't decide how people use Wikipedia, and most people just spend a few minutes here before bouncing. Links help them rapidly get to whatever's relevant to them, which IMO increases the chance they'll spend more time here. DFlhb (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It makes zero sense to me to avoid links in the lead. Readers can choose to follow the links or not, no one is forcing anyone to click anything. This is a really bizarre choice inconsistent with the entire rest of the site, links should be added. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a subsection for discussion and a few more Wikilinks currently linked in the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heading to consensus

• So far I'm seeing 4 editors in favor of restoring the links, and 3 editors against. It would be helpful if more folks weighed in who watch this talk page! —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This discussion is heading towards an RfC. Cessaune (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Add me to the list of those in favor of restoring the links to his policies and significant views in the lede. I see no example in my decade of Wikipedia experience where all wikilinks were removed from a US president's lede because the thinking was that it's better to scroll through thousands of words to get to more information. It goes against what I thought Wikipedia did, which is make things easy to navigate and learn about. A 5+ paragraph summary with no links to more information seems ridiculous and brand new to me. Most people, in my view, don't sort through 50 sections of an article to find each piece of information in the lede they want to learn more about. -Teammm ^talk? 14:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, that makes it 6 editors in favor of links (see IP below), and 3 against. If the trend continues in this way, I'm going to re-establish the links tomorrow, since clear consensus seems to be forming. 14:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC) —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you count me as one of the against editors? GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was counting people who had commented in this discussion, so no: Space4Time, ValarianB, and Khajidha were the 3 I was counting. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against adding links, so that makes it four. GoodDay (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you counting the IP address with a total of three edits, two on this Talk page, one on Obama’s, made within 6 minutes of each other? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with anything? Cessaune (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesha811, I just made a comment regarding one of the links, trying to get back to your original request, "Please discuss these individually, and not collectively, since consensus may be different from link to link." Bob K31416 (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose As it stands as of this timestamp, looks fine. Don't clutter it with a million links. Zaathras (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Opposition is fine, but I wish people wouldn't use hyperbole. I'm proposing just 10 specific links. It's hardly a large number in the context of *any* Wikipedia article over 1000 words, let alone this one. —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly my thoughts. Cessaune (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• 2017–2019 special counsel investigation → 2017–2019 special counsel investigation

Suggest changing,

"The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to favor the election of Trump."

to

"The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to favor the election of Trump."

and it wouldn't change the number of wikilinks. Bob K31416 (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Russia interfered in the 2016 election → Russia interfered in the 2016 election

The above two bullet points propose two Wikilinks (bolded) for one sentence: The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to favor the election of Trump. We should consider changing the sentence to "Several investigations" or simply "Investigations" established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to favor the election of Trump. The hamstrung Mueller special counsel investigation seemed much more important in 2019 than now. There were also the FBI investigation FBI Crossfire Hurricane investigation that was terminated with the false announcement that Mueller would continue it; the joint conclusion of CIA, FBI, and DNI that Russia interfered; and the Senate Intelligence Committee report on the interference. The last one’s not mentioned in the body - does anyone remember whether it was discussed and not added or removed for some reason? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation) did not establish that Russia interfered, was a flawed investigation, and later resulted in one of its FBI lawyers being convicted of making false statements during the investigation.

2. I would agree with not having the wikilink Russia interfered in the 2016 election but instead have the wikilink 2017–2019 special counsel investigation as I suggested above in the previous bullet point. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss the memo on the Durham investigation having been a $6.5 million bust, not including the money Durham spent from 2019 to September 2020? You’re repeating debunked Trumpian and Republican claims. The one problem the IG report found was then-FBI attorney Clinesmith’s good-faith but "inappropriate shortcut", the altered email, to obtain FISA warrants against one individual, Carter Page, the FBI had been investigating since 2013. Page had hyped his largely nonexistent Russian connections and was hired and fired by the Trump campaign as an advisor in 2016. Mueller was allowed to continue the Crossfire investigations against Manafort, Flynn, Stone, Papadopoulus, van Der Zwaan, etc., which resulted in convictions. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bob K31416, you wrote "Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation) did not establish that Russia interfered,.." Is a word missing there? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valjean, I don't see what you mean. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, that is a very false statement. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have interpreted the statement to mean something that I hadn't intended. Crossfire Hurricane did not establish whether Russia interfered or did not interfere, if that clarifies it for you. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bob K31416, I'm not sure that helps at all. Are you implying there was no interference? The Mueller report described the findings of the CH investigation, and it found a lot of interference by Russia and knowledge of it by Trump and his campaign. This is from the lead of Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation)

"The FBI's work was taken over on May 17, 2017, by the Special Counsel investigation of 2017–2019, which eventually resulted in the Mueller Report. Mueller concluded that Russian interference occurred in a "sweeping and systematic fashion" and that there were substantial links with the Trump campaign, but the evidence available to investigators did not establish that the Trump campaign had "conspired or coordinated" with the Russian government."

We have quite a few articles that go into much detail about the various ways the Russians interfered, as well as how Trump and his people reacted to the interference. They welcomed it, facilitated, aided and abetted, cooperated with, secretly met with Russian intelligence agents, lied about, and denied there was any interference. Then, as the evidence became stronger, they denied knowledge of it; then said it was not performed to help Trump win; then that it wasn't the Russians (even dangling the offer of a pardon to Assange if he denied it was the Russians, so he placed the blame on the innocent Seth Rich); then that the Trump campaign did not collude with the Russians; then that Trump wasn't involved; then Giuliani's "loose lips" partially let the cat out of the bag: "I never said there was no collusion between the campaign, or people in the campaign" "Giuliani added that Trump himself has never said there was no collusion at all, just that he did not assist with Russian efforts to interfere with the election." That too was a lie. The story kept changing.

Trump had already been planning his candidacy with the Russians since November 2013 at the Miss Universe contest in Moscow, and already in January 2014 they publicly promised to help him. Of course, he denied that possibility. Another lie. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Are you implying there was no interference?" — No. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries → travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries
• policy of family separations → policy of family separations
• individual health insurance mandate → individual health insurance mandate

• This is the first link in a sentence with two of them. It links to a subsection of a page that contains the history of failed pre-ACA efforts to institute a mandate plus info on a few individual state mandates and some odd info on purpose ("free-rider problems" and "death spirals"). I, for one, am not looking for any of that when I read the lead of Trump's bio. The subsection doesn’t mention the ACA except in one aside ("as they are under the Affordable Care Act.") and in the subsection about Massachusetts. I don't think we need this link in the article at all, and definitely not in the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree on opposing this link per your reasoning; support all the others. DFlhb (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fair argument and I wouldn't mind not implementing this link to maintain consensus if the others find adequate support. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Affordable Care Act → Affordable Care Act
• Trans-Pacific Partnership → Trans-Pacific Partnership
• Paris Agreement → Paris Agreement
• Iran nuclear deal → Iran nuclear deal
• 2024 presidential election → 2024 presidential election
• Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017
• 2016 presidential election
• 2020 presidential election

Obama example

To avoid disrupting Wikipedia itself to make a point, I've created a sandbox article (link here) that shows what a similar culling of links from the Barack Obama lead would look like. Take a look and read it from the perspective of someone who, for instance, may be a non-American child learning about Obama for the first time. Is the lack of links helpful? If the editors here feel the less-linked equivalent on Donald Trump is genuinely better than the more-linked version, then so be it, but I still struggle greatly to understand your perspective. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there should NEVER be links in the lead. That's what the body is for.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that goes against long-standing consensus, and is unrealistic. Cessaune (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Links in the lede

Most paragraphs on the policy changes put in place by US presidents have lots of hyperlinks to other Wikipedia articles on those specific legislation.

However, this paragraph ("Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, diverted military funding towards building a wall on the U.S.–Mexico border, and implemented a policy of family separations for apprehended migrants. He rolled back more than 100 environmental policies and regulations in an aggressive attempt to weaken environmental protections. Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 which cut taxes for individuals and businesses and rescinded the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Act. He appointed 54 federal appellate judges and three United States Supreme Court justices. In foreign policy, Trump initiated a trade war with China and withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. Trump met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un three times, but made no progress on denuclearization. He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials in his messaging, and promoted misinformation about unproven treatments and the need for testing.") has almost no links whatsoever. This should be changed, I think? 2405:201:E00B:6E35:A429:8F69:3C87:EAE (talk) 12:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! Please feel free to join in the discussion above if you would like to say more on the subject. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't add any links, we've got the Trump administration page to handle those events. GoodDay (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, at the time of writing this, the lead has a less-than-average amount of links and citations, and, if this change is implemented, it will still have a less-than-average amount of links and citations, when compared to the pages of other US presidents, at the very least.

Yet: User:ValarianB: We do the reader a disservice by providing link after link after link, where they feel they have to endlessly branch off elsewhere to find what they're looking for. Let the the readers actually read and not click. What? No one, let me repeat this, no one reads Wikipedia. (Okay, I do, but I'm an outlier, as are a lot of Wikipedia editors, likely.) They scan an article to find the infomation they want and dip. As such, we should be branching readers off to more detailed article elsewhere. If someone comes here and something catches their eye and they leave, what is wrong with that? Explain to me what a reader gains from staying on this page, or loses from leaving it?

User:Space4Time3Continuum2x: Leads seem to be written with linking to other pages in mind. Why? Because we're uncertain about the information contained in this article? No, because we are certain that the information contained in other articles is more detailed and will provide the reader with a better understanding of the topic. Simple.

Then there are a scattering of statements such as Articles become unreadable when every other word takes you to a different topic or Don't clutter it with a million links and the like. Okayyy... but what does that have to do with this article? If the claim is being made that these ten or so additions will turn the lead into a blue soup, I respectfully disagree. Nearly every single major Trump page has more links in the lead than this one. To say that these links will add "clutter" is a matter of personal preference and does not fit the de facto standard set by the more than two decades of editing preceding this simple change. (Really, we need to make MOS:CONTEXTLINK and MOS:LEADCITE more specific, it's killing me how much they suggest without actually stating anything.)

This is the second-biggest Trump page (after Presidency of Donald Trump) and in the top-100 biggest pages by filesize. Adding ten links to this massive article is no going to add much in the way of blue, but it is going to add a lot in terms of navigability. It also complies with the way other articles are written. The current way the lead is written complies with guidelines (in the fact that the guidelines do not address a standard amount of links and only suggest what should be linked), but does not match other articles. The local consensus here is that links in the lead should be used sparingly, which is fine. I just disagree. And, in my opinion, though de facto standard and local consensus are normally on an even playing field, de facto standard is strong enough to overpower local consensus in a style sense, as we all want Wikipedia to look the same stylistically (in most cases).

Give me a single reason why a reader will benefit from the current state of the lead as opposed to the proposed one. Give me a single reason why a reader will not benefit from the proposed state of the lead as opposed to the current one. No more 'it's cluttered' or 'they can read down and find it'. Actually explain why the current version is better than the proposed one. That's all I ask. Cessaune (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They scan an article to find the infomation they want and dip. Someone's tracking my eye movements while I allegedly scan and dip? what does that have to do with this article? Everything since this is the article we're discussing. This article has 3,743 watchers plus at least one watcher (me) who's not signed up to watch. Ten people contributed to this discussion, so the vast majority appears not to care one way or another. The regular editors of this page have managed to handle the occasional complaint of "not supported by ..." (they have tapered off considerably) by pointing out the supporting material and cites in the body. Have you read every article you want to wikilink from the lead to make sure it supports what we're saying in the lead? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They scan an article to find the infomation they want and dip is based on my super informal survey of friends who all agreed that there is no way the would actually fully read an article this long, which makes sense. Before I was an editor, the only long article I had ever read completely through was the Orgasm article (I would recommend it, it's actually pretty interesting) and my main use for Wikipedia was either to easily find reliable cites or to play the Wikipedia game. I thought the idea that no one (referring to the vast majority) actually reads Wikipedia was common sense. I would bet a lot of money that the vast majority of people who read this article at all are not going to read the whole article, or half, or a fourth. That's a reasonable assumption. This is one of the biggest articles on the English Wikipedia, after all.

What does that have to do with this article?—I was suggesting that it's unreasonable to think that ten cites will make the lead cluttered or be too many when compared to the de facto standard present on most pages this long. And I struggle to understand that perspective. From a purely style standpoint, the lead as it is right now is fine, but this isn't a purely style question. In fact, it shouldn't be a style question at all, as there are zero policies or guidelines governing the number of links in a lead. It should be a question of which provides the biggest benefit to the readers. No one except us editors care if every third word was blue. People just want information.

Please answer my question above. I want to understand the logic. Cessaune (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this discussion seems to be stalemating. I will say that generally, I see no reason to treat the mostly link-free version in place at present as the default - for Trump's entire presidency, the lead was full of (perhaps a few too many) links and I cannot find any established consensus to remove them. A few editors seem to have taken a dislike and made substantial changes, which is fair, but never clearly established consensus for the dramatically link-less version we have now. Not sure where to go from here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC. Discussion has reached a stalemate. Cessaune (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't often (or ever, really) start RfCs - would you be willing to begin one? —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done. Cessaune (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: RfC has been moved to a new section below, "RfC on links in the lead". Please head there to vote and discuss. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC started below

To all those who participated in this discussion, please note that an RfC has been started below (RfC on links in the lead) to help us formally resolve this question and your participation there is welcome. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think, to add some balance, maybe the sentence on his response to COVID-19 in the lede should include a mention of Operation Warp Speed, which by most accounts was successful? 2405:201:E00B:6E35:A429:8F69:3C87:EAE (talk) 12:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A singular part of his Covid response was successful, but, taken as a whole, it was generally considered unsuccessful/not as successful as it could have been. I don't think we need to add more to the lead to address this. Cessaune (talk) 10:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While in of itself it would mean roughly the same, I feel that using wording such as "Trump made unsubstantiated allegations of widespread electoral fraud" would come over as more neutral and nuanced than "Trump falsely claimed widespread electoral fraud". Synotia (talk) 10:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They have been determined to be false and that's how reliable sources state it. So, that's how we state it. MOS:DOUBT O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Unsubstantiated" means "without proof", "false" means "proven to be contrary to fact". All evidence shows NO widespread fraud, so "unsubstantiated" is itself a false statement. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated is exactly how its described in the article. Trump's unsubstantiated allegations of widespread voting fraud... Cessaune (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"were widely refuted..." The sentence in the article says that Trump made claims with no evidence that were then disproven by evidence. The request above leaves out the fact that such claims were shown to be false. Far from being neutral it is an attempt to hide Trump's lies.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like your characterization of the statement as an attempt to hide Trump's lies. It was an attempt to cut down on perceived bias in the article. It was a reasonable attempt, at that. ...an attempt to hide Trump's lies comes off as uncivil IMO. Cessaune (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When the claims have been shown to be false, any attempt to remove mention of that is, by definition, an attempt to hide lies.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or not fully understanding complex grammatical nuances and the exact meaning of a specific word. What you're saying is correct, but correctness isn't always civil. Cessaune (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So far the only one in this conversation that has been uncivil is you.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry if I have come off as uncivil. I wasn't intending to, and I am truly sorry. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I'll try to be more specific.

You stated that the proposed change was "far from being neutral" and "an attempt to hide Trump's lies". Let's analyze this.

"Far from being neutral": well... Every proposed edit on this page of this sort are made to push a POV, whether explicit or implicit. Always. About half try to push their POV through the pseudo-legal processes that run the English Wikipedia (the other half are generalizations of bias that don't state anything useful and are attempts to push POVs that disregard the framework of Wikipedia entirely in doing so). There is nothing wrong with pushing a POV civilly, as long as you respect the procedures and processes of Wikipedia. Pertaining to the proposal itself: to state that is isn't neutral is a fair statement.

You said that "The request above leaves out the fact that such claims were shown to be false." Yes. This is an unbiased analyzation of the proposed edit. But you continued, and this is where my issue lays: "Far from being neutral it is an attempt to hide Trump's lies." In my opinion, this sentence does not WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. To state that a proposed edit, one that very clearly intends to follow the framework of Wikipedia (they stated their problem and offered a potential solution in a neutral tone), is an attempt to hide lies... I don't like it. This is why I accused you of uncivility. And in doing so, I may have come across as uncivil myself. Again, I am very sorry for that. Cessaune (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As Trump's claims have been shown to be false, suggesting that we not mention that fact is neither NPOV or reasonable. And pointing that out is not uncivil, it is the proper response to an attempt to spread falsehood --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, why does it have to be an attempt to spread falsehood? Why can't we just assume good faith while also shutting it down? No one suggested that we shouldn't mention that the claims are false. It wasn't willful omission. Cessaune (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't see how removing the specification that something known to be false is false and replacing it with the statement that it has an unknown value of truth is itself spreading falsehood, then I don't see how this conversation can continue. Assuming good faith is not meant to be a suicide pact. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your point, I just don't agree with your method of conveying that point. Cessaune (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer "Trump made false claims of widespread electoral fraud". Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Active voice straightforward statement is better. The point is that Trump claimed, not that Trump made. SPECIFICO talk 13:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether he actually believed it or not, Trump falsely claimed that he won re-election. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Space4Time3Continuum2x : I see that this edit of mine might have its detractors. It came from a good intention, I wanted to make it easier for a reader to directly read more about a topic without having to look for it in the article... Synotia (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I always assume good faith , I just happen to disagree that readers coming to Donald Trump's biography want to be taken to other articles to read more about, e.g., the more than 100 environmental policies and regulations he/his administration rolled back — a very long and very detailed article about the Trump administration. If someone is looking for info on "Trump" and "environment", a simple Google search for those two words produces the WP article as the top result. Also, this particular wikilink is a MOS:EGG that appears to lead to an explanation of "roll back". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, why not remove all blue links in the lede then? Synotia (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Synotia, please add your thoughts to the section above, "Seeking consensus for individual link additions to lead." I am trying to get more links restored as well and would appreciate your comments. —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This relates to the §Financial disclosures (and possibly §Wealth) sections. Feel free to add more reputable WP:RS to this list, so we can discuss proposed changes as the dust settles over the coming weeks. DFlhb (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tankersley, Jim; Craig, Susanne; Buettner, Russ (2022-12-30). "Key Takeaways From Trump's Tax Returns". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-12-30.
• "What do Trump's tax returns show?". BBC News. 2022-12-30. Retrieved 2022-12-30.
• "Big Write-Offs, Tax-Cut Perks: Key Takeaways From Trump's Tax Returns". Bloomberg News. 2022-12-30. Retrieved 2022-12-30.
• Vazquez, David Goldman,Jeremy Herb,Jeanne Sahadi,Maegan (2022-12-30). "Key takeaways from six years of Donald Trump's federal tax returns | CNN Politics". CNN Politics. Retrieved 2022-12-30.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

You are begging for money and in you repeated requests for money you stated Wikipedia is a neutral information site. Please read your page on Donald Trump and then tell me you are a neutral information site. 47.180.169.216 (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might try expressing your thought at User talk:Jimbo Wales instead of here. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of us like the "begging for money" run by the Wikimedia Foundation, and none of us see a penny of it. Best, DFlhb (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not claim to be a "neutral information site." That's a misunderstanding of the NPOV policy. It is a site that neutrally documents the sum total of human knowledge, and much, if not most, of that knowledge includes bias and is not neutral, therefore it is editors, not sources or content, that must remain neutral as they document all of that. So as you read, if you find bias, that bias should be the bias in the source, not bias introduced by an editor. Check the references for that content. If the source does not say what our content says, then complain (in a civil manner) at the talk page so it can be fixed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could we at least get an example? Neutrality is a fair enough concern to have for any Wikipedia article, particularly on contentious subjects. Wikipedia should remain as neutral and objective as possible, which includes not adopting bias that may exist within reliable sources. Unfortunately, many complaints about bias and neutrality seem more politically motivated, such as this one. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Documenting bias is not the same as "adopting bias." Refusing to document the bias is itself an editorial interference, IOW a biased decision that takes sides against the source. We don't do that. And yes, the initial complaint by the OP does seem to be the typical "politically motivated" objection we see all the time, the type of objection made by people who misunderstand our NPOV policy. NPOV expressly does NOT require that sources or content be neutral, but it does require that editors edit neutrally. An article on any controversial topic should not be neutered of opinions and biases. The biases and opinions of the sources should be evident. Editors should keep their own opinions out of the article. They should not neuter sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend what you mean by documenting bias. What I mean is that the tone of Wikipedia articles should not necessarily have the same tone as the sources we rely on. I am affirming that we should rely on sources which may have their own biases. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

not adopting bias that may exist within reliable sources 123, please read WP:NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 02:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP47.180.169.216, if you find any content that seems to include editorial bias from editors here, please let us know. Please provide examples. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the subsection Presidency (2017–2021) > COVID-19 pandemic > Initial response there is,

"Trump continued to claim that a vaccine was less than a year away, although HHS and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials had repeatedly told him that vaccine development would take 12–18 months."

This implies that Trump was making a false claim, when in fact he was right. See [7] for example. Bob K31416 (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fan of this sentence. Would be better to have a few sentences on him not caring to understand nuances, somewhere in a leadership section (which is the real point of including this sentence), while focusing more on events and less on words in the presidency section. DFlhb (talk) 03:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, 12-18 months was a forecast made by actual scientific experts at the time, while Trump's "less than a year" was evidenced-free braggadocio. Being right by happenstance does not gainsay the initially-valid opinions of those who actually knew what they were talking about. Zaathras (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the wording is terrible. Trump continued to claim that a vaccine was less than a year away, although HHS and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials had repeatedly told him that vaccine development would take 12–18 months. Trump claimed, yet the CDC and HHS knew based on the wording? How could they have known how long it would take to develop the vaccine? Obviously, it was an educated guess, but a guess nonetheless. The wording treats it like Trump was guessing while the CDC and HHS were stating the facts, which isn't true, as they were both guessing. Cessaune (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That ignores what Zaathras explained immediately above. SPECIFICO talk 00:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How? What Zaathras said is true, and what I said is true. Zaathras uses the word "forecast", which implies that they didn't actually know how long it was going to take, and their "opinion" was that they did not believe that vaccine development in less than a year was possible. The statement Vaccine development would take 12–18 months implies that they knew that it would take a year or more. They didn't know that, and they could not have known that. Yes, they are the experts, yes, Trump went against the experts. That doesn't change the fact that they didn't and couldn't know how long it would take, and the implication that the experts knew the facts is incorrect. In reality, Trump was just being confident and the experts were just being realistic in their estimates, a common theme between politicians and experts. Delete the whole sentence. Cessaune (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be under the impression that a forecast is some sort of random guess, which it is not. There is a huge difference. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was random. I even described it as an educated guess, not a normal guess. Cessaune (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You said, which implies that they didn't actually know how long it was going to take. That is the typical all-or-nothing reasoning people use when they want to present a well-supported statement as dubious. Fact is, Trump, as usual, said exactly the opposite of what experts had told him. "Claim" is the right term for his claim, "told him" is the right term for what experts told him, and treating his uneducated guess the same as the forecast is WP:FALSEBALANCE. Wikipedia should continue to clearly separate well-founded statements of experts from the delusions of incompetent, fantasy-prone, notoriously dishonest laypeople. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, Trump was just being confident and the experts were just being realistic in their estimates, a common theme between politicians and experts. The fact that Trump is incompetent, fantasy-prone, and notoriously dishonest (apparently) has nothing to do with that. All presidents are confident. Your WP:FALSEBALANCE arguent is well-received, but it is a fact throughout all modern history that politicians are more confident than scientists. This is not a Trump thing. Cessaune (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Scientists can state the degree of confidence and probability of error in their estimates. Moreover, based on the recorded conversations between Trump and Woodward, Trump's public statements were deceitful and far from confident. SPECIFICO talk 15:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, here are statements made by Trump and Pfizer:

Trump, March 5, 2020 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/05/coronavirus-trump-vaccine-rhetoric-121796

“So you’re talking over the next few months, you think you could have a vaccine?” Trump asked during a meeting with top health officials on Monday.

“You won’t have a vaccine,” corrected Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar after some cross talk. “You’ll have a vaccine to go into testing.”

“All right, so you’re talking within a year,” Trump said moments later.

“A year to a year and a half,” interjected Anthony Fauci, a government veteran of disease outbreaks under six presidents

In the above, Trump is not claiming that a vaccine was less than a year away. He's trying to get timing information from the experts. He's asking what they think.

Pfizer, April 9, 2020 https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-advances-battle-against-covid-19-multiple-fronts From the second section Applying Pfizer’s ...,

"The companies estimate that there is potential to supply millions of vaccine doses by the end of 2020 ..."

Trump, May 15, 2020 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/fact-check-coronavirus-vaccine-could-come-year-trump-says-experts-n1207411

"We're looking to get it by the end of the year if we can, maybe before," Trump said Friday during in a Rose Garden event centered on his administration's efforts to fast-track a vaccine.

Note that this comment on May 15 came after the previous Apr 9 statement from Pfizer "that there is potential to supply millions of vaccine doses by the end of 2020". Bob K31416 (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is no mention in this article of the Trump administration's Operation Warp Speed, which expedited vaccine development. And looking at Wikipedia's article on Operation Warp Speed, there is no mention in the lead over there of Trump or his White House despite sources in the lead over there with the titles, "Trump Administration Announces Framework and Leadership for 'Operation Warp Speed'", "Trump's 'Operation Warp Speed' aims to rush coronavirus vaccine", "Unveiling 'Warp Speed,' the White House's America-first push for a coronavirus vaccine". Bob K31416 (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, OWS was largely ineffective, and actually hindered Pfizer's early production goals. Zaathras (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about we simply do away with Trump's claims of when a vaccine would be produced, at least for this article? It might be relevant in the articles specifically about Trump and the response to the pandemic. Whether one sees it as an example of a visionary or a blusterer (for lack of a better word), it is hardly relevant enough to be considered an important aspect of his entire life. If it is being included to help indicate the latter (the bluster element), we have more than enough of that in the remainder of the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An attempt was made to include the Abraham Accords, which went nowhere. AFAIK, the US didn't get into any 'new' wars while he was president, so perhaps that can be mentioned. GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Abraham Accords were largely symbolic and meaningless. It gets a footnote in his Presidency... article, which is sufficient. Zaathras (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@47:180:169.216:, if there's something you want added to this page, then propose what that something is. Whether it gets added or not, depends on how many editors you can get to support your proposal. GoodDay (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If you think that Donald Trump’s biography is not neutral, then please point out which parts are biased and cite the sources that support your view. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I went to reexamine the sentence under discussion (see my message of 02:53, 31 December) and the source [8] does not appear to say that Trump claimed a vaccine was less than a year away. This is looking like a mess. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On that basis, I would support any editor boldly removing the claim from the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right. But the bigger question should be whether this is due. Who cares if he made a correct prediction, which experts were seemingly wrong on? Predicting when a product will go-to-market is not some kind of scientific calculation, where expertise would matter. On the contrary. Him making a guess, and an expert making another guess, is utterly non-noteworthy.

We're only bringing up this trivia in order to depict him as having little respect for expertise. So why not bother to find a proper source for that, and then say it explicitly? Why hint at things?

There's way too many instances of us mentioning massively undue things for the sole purpose of hinting at due things we should be stating outright. Would save us a fair bit of word count. DFlhb (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first step would rightly be to remove this sentence from the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not without doing as DF says. SPECIFICO talk 03:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you're misrepresenting what DFlhb is saying. They are saying that the sentence should not be in the article because it is not due, and I agree with them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind if we wait for better material to be proposed before removing; though I don't see it as a necesssity, since it makes editing the page a bit too formal a process for my tastes. Regardless, it's unlikely you'll get consensus without proposing a replacement. DFlhb (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence itself never had a consensus for its inclusion, so we can remove it without consensus. This shouldn't be something that rises to the level of requiring a discussion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That comes with the territory of editing a page that's both controversial, and very highly discussed. When editors dispute potential changes, affirmative consensus is required. There's good and bad aspects to that, but it's defensible. DFlhb (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the sentence. GoodDay (talk) 06:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Trump and his administration's efforts to expedite a vaccine, here's an article from CNN, Trump scores a long-awaited coronavirus win with vaccines on the way. Bob K31416 (talk) 03:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2 years old. Find something newer that has analysed Trump's "victory" after the passage of some time. Zaathras (talk) 04:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The same article says that some of the scientific work that led up to the development of the vaccines had been going on for 15 years. Also, the vaccine first out of the gate, BioNTech/Pfizer, was developed without Operation Warp Speed funds, and other countries weren't all that thrilled that the Trump administration bought up the entire initial vaccine production at the asking price. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to not being neutral by leaving out positive aspects of Trump's presidency like the covid vaccine expediting, the article goes into excessive detail on negative aspects. As an example of the latter, an editor recently tried to reduce some of the excessive detail with this edit [9] and was reverted [10]. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Wordle solution is *****. As a result of the investigations into Russian election interference, the president's friends and close and not-so-close associates were convicted of felonies, and then he pardoned every single one of them (except for Cohen who cooperated with the investigators). Any other presidents proudly looking back on that kind of legacy? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is some excessive detail on the criminal investigations in this article, such as going into detail on who of his advisers and campaign staff were convicted of crimes, and the lengths of their sentences. This is an article about Donald Trump, not anybody else, and the criminal records of those associated persons should be found in other articles. On this article, it should be enough to say that several of his associates have been investigated and convicted of such crimes, and detail what Trump himself did or influenced in doing. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is actually correct, article has become very biased

Despite the poor tone of the IP, there is some substance in their observation that the article is biased indeed. Much as I personally think Trump should be in prison and despise the man, some editorial choices here are rather surprising and, well, biased. The Abraham Accords are never even mentioned. A US President helping to establish peace deals between Israel and several Arab states is highly important, yet not even included here while many marginal aspects get plenty of space. Sorry to say, but the impression is that several users have come to believe that including anything positive about Trump is to endorse him. Trump is a horrible man who was a horrible President and occasionally did a few good things as well. Jeppiz (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the Abraham Accords are ^{(considered, by reliable sources, of course)} important enough to be included here, except maybe a brief mention, as the agreements made are quite inconsequential. One of the main problems with this article is that it overly and unnecessarily details negative events and characteristics of the subject's presidency and political career. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed several times. Trump had little to do with these dubious "accords", which sources say were largely Netanyahu's media announcement of arrangements de facto in place for some time. SPECIFICO talk 00:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeppiz: in order to get something (I assume you're hinting) positive added to this BLP? You have to get a consensus from editors first. An RFC (which brings in outside editors), is likely the best route to take. GoodDay (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is absolutely incorrect. Issues are resolved by discussion. But repetitive discussions for no new reason are pointless. SPECIFICO talk 03:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What? No. Discuss first, always. There are enough editors watching this page that can weigh in if they want. You start an RfC after discussion has taken place. Cessaune (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor who wants to begin an RFC, to include or exclude anything on this BLP (if they think it necessary), are free to do so. We few who frequent this BLP (and talkpage), can't stop them. GoodDay (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are technically correct, however WP:RFCBEFORE suggests discussion first. ...likely the best route to take goes against this. Cessaune (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If any editor sees this BLP as being biased (i.e non-NPoV), then it'll be up to them 'how' they handle it. GoodDay (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you suggested that, against information widely agreed upon not just in a de facto sense but fully codified, that starting an RfC is likely the best route to take. Why? Cessaune (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's the best route to take, for more input. GoodDay (talk) 05:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But why is "more input" needed? The talk page is consistently being edited. What's wrong with the current input? Cessaune (talk) 05:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A question for those who feel this page is biased, to answer. GoodDay (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course anyone can start an RfC. Read WP:RFCBEFORE. We shouldnt waste editor time, resources. More input comes after initial input, such as discussion. RFCBEFORE is very clear: If you don't have to start an RfC, don't. What is the benefit of starting an RfC if a) there are capable editors always watching this page, b) there has no attempt to discuss with said capable editors, c) editor resources will be wasted in dealing with an RfC, d) RfCs on this page are almost always a mess of uninformed editors who vote based on political ideology and not RS, e) RfCs on this page tend to end in status quo ante bellum? Cessaune (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a massive overreaction to a fairly benign comment from GoodDay. I agree it may have been better written, but there's no real issue here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all overreaction. That was a highly disruptive suggestion and this issue is nowhere near the stage at which an RfC would be constructive or elucidative. The comment is contrary to our basic processes of collaboration, hence the decisive rejection. SPECIFICO talk 22:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the infobox in the article includes no spacing whatsoever. I have been reverted in the past for adding spacing, so I am bringing it to the talk page. I understand concerns that any spacing artificially inflates the article byte count, but I don't see any other reason for not including spacing, especially since the infoboxes on every single other president's articles include it, and it is much more visually appealing when editing. Politicsfan4 (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, you appear to be referring to vertical alignment of the template parameter values in the infobox coding, not spacing in the infobox rendering (which isn't possible to my knowledge). Here are the diffs of your attempt (or one of them) and its revert, which occurred in early August: [11][12]

I like neatness and I find the alignment aesthetically appealing; on the other hand, I don't see any real ease-of-use improvement for editors. I don't put much stock in your argument about a need for consistency in coding between presidential articles. It doesn't even make a difference in what readers see, and I think a lot of those consistency arguments are overblown. I also don't think the 0.1% increase in article file size is enough to worry about, especially considering that editors aren't too concerned about the article being already about 30% larger than it should be. I could go either way. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Why would you do this? If anything, I find the version with the spaces to be LESS visually appealing as it introduces confusion as to whether the data goes in the empty space before or after the equal sign. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 23:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Khajidha: You're gonna have to make yourself more clear. It's pretty obvious when there is spacing that the data goes after the equal sign, because there is spacing. I don't see how anyone could possibly be confused by that. Also, spaces make the infobox more uniform, as every parameter is the same "length" in code, at least up till the equal sign, although this isn't a big deal for me personally. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information goes after the label. If you put all that space in the label before the equal sign, it looks like it has ended, and then it starts back up again with the equal sign. Having the equal sign immediately after the label is much clearer, because the apparent end of the label is the actual end of the label. To me, the varying length of the spaces looks more "ragged" than the varying length of the unspaced version. As for the question of consistency, I feel no need to make this box look hideous just to match other hideous layouts. If you want consistency, go take the spaces out of the others. It will be a great improvement. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 05:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, as a clarification note: the article used to have spacing consistent with other presidential infoboxes. It was removed with this edit in January 2022 in an attempt to reduce the article size, although it only ended up cutting 382 bytes off, with no visual difference obviously. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a remarkably silly hill to die on. As long as what is presented to the reader is proper and accurate, what is under the hood is irrelevant. Zaathras (talk) 05:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaathras: I'm not really dying on this hill. It's no big deal either way for me if the spacing is there or not; I'm simply explaining an option to restore previous spacing or keep it the same. I would quickly do it on my own in an edit but I have been reverted before for doing so, therefore, I'm bringing it to the talk page. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then, honestly, don't even think about it, this just isn't a thing to give a second thought to. And this applies to whoever reverted it, too. Zaathras (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Whoever" — that's you, me, and Muboshgu. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Derp, guess I forgot about that. Well form this point forward, I'm going to leave it alone one way or the other. Zaathras (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please change the following, such that new sources 5 and 6 are added:

Detetrident (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Thank you for finding sources to replace the cn tags. Unfortunately, I don't think the Politico piece verifies "Trump dismantled many federal regulations on health", as it mostly covers plans and initiatives to do so. Hopefully there's another source out there that follows through on what actually occurred. The Brandeis source for labor regulations is unreliable. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added these cites for health,^[11][12] labor,^[13][12] and environment.^[12] Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph of Donald trump#Special counsel investigation contains a bunch of facts about people that aren't Trump. I propose we delete the whole paragraph and leave the first sentence. Cessaune (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The two sentences about Stone need to stay, too. The release of the hacked emails is related to the 2016 election, and the judge pointed a finger at Trump by saying that Stone "was prosecuted for covering up for the president". We'll eventually have to take another look at the entire section and the many cited sources. A less-redacted version of the report was released in June 2020, and the Justice Department [] released portions of a previously unseen alternative version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on ties between former President Donald Trump and Russia in 2022, also heavily redacted on grounds of ongoing investigations, privacy and protecting internal deliberations. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It should be sufficient to say that several people related to Trump's campaign have been investigated and convicted of such crimes, without detail about specific individuals. If there is anything directly related to Trump, such as anything related to the hacked emails in the 2016 election, that should be contained in the section relevant to the election. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add more links to the lead?

1. Yes, the ten (or so) described below
2. Yes, the ten described below, alongside a few more links
3. No, the lead should stay as is

Thanks, Cessaune (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Links

• 2017–2019 special counsel investigation → 2017–2019 special counsel investigation
• Russia interfered in the 2016 election → Russia interfered in the 2016 election
• travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries → travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries
• policy of family separations → policy of family separations
• individual health insurance mandate → individual health insurance mandate
• Affordable Care Act → Affordable Care Act
• Trans-Pacific Partnership → Trans-Pacific Partnership
• Paris Agreement → Paris Agreement
• Iran nuclear deal → Iran nuclear deal
• 2024 presidential election → 2024 presidential election

Voting

• 1, then 2. 2, then 1.The lead is severly underlinked as is, when compared to the pages of other former US presidents, but this page moves slowly and I kind of like that. Cessaune (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 3 fine as it currently is, there are some important things linked already. Adding more would be detrimental and largely pointless. 01:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaathras (talk • contribs)
• 2, then 1. I've expressed my thoughts in the section higher on this page, but in brief: these links are specific, useful to the reader, and are to non-generic things that a reader may reasonably not know about or want to learn more about. They should be linked per our policy at MOS:OL and MOS:UL. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 2 > 1. I don't think any president has been as thoroughly-covered by Wikipedians as Trump; there's a huge amount of articles covering all aspects of his Presidency, which are of good quality, and we should make it easy for people to get to whatever topic they care about. On mobile, jumping back and forth between sections isn't as easy as just dipping in and out of blue links. A lot of people like to go down the Wikipedia rabbit hole too; why make it hard? Would support a majority of the old links, save for the MOS:SEAOFBLUE and list articles. DFlhb (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 3 - We don't need to have the intro over-linked. GoodDay (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 2 - These and so many more, including the false statements he's made, the Trump wall, the COVID-19 pandemic, his attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election and the January 6 United States Capitol attack, deserve to be linked to. It's not like linking to general topics like bankruptcy or impeachment; these are topics that he is closely related to. Songwaters (talk) 06:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 3 to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE problems. --Jayron32 13:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Does proposal 1 create a SEAOFBLUE problem? Cessaune (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. --Jayron32 11:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  How so? Cessaune (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 3 Status-quo. ValarianB (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 for now, this is a poorly orchestrated RfC. The only reasonable way to do this is for us to vote on each proposed link individually. The case for a broader proliferation of internal links in general has not been sufficiently made either. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But, imagine an RfC where we vote on every single link. It would be chaos. This is only step one. Cessaune (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You think we won’t be discussing every single link? See discussion, below. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. There was just no efficient way to start an RfC asking people to look at each individual link on its own merits. Objections can be raised and sorted out, of course, but I just don't think there was a better way to start it. Cessaune (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say we have chaos now. Seems to me that this comment nominated five additional links, including a MOS:EGG. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How else should I have done it? Cessaune (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Army wisdom: "never volunteer". If I remember correctly, I started exactly one RfC ever. Advice on what not to do: WP:RFCBRIEF. In this case, I think the third "bad questions" bullet point applies. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It need not be chaos. For example, I could say Yes to A, B, D and F, and No to C, E and G. Tallying up the responses for each link would help us understand which links would be overwhelmingly supported, which ones would be overwhelmingly opposed, and which ones remaining would require further discussion. I would be willing to start such an RfC, once this one finishes. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ranked-choice voting for two options but not for the third one, with option 2 being "anything really", then another RfC on individual links 1–10 or 1–n — yay process! Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 1 all are informative links. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 07:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 2 then 1. These were all here before (~1 year ago) and I don't see why they were taken out. Linking to the articles for things is how Wikipedia works. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 14:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 1. It would be helpful to people reading the article, who didn't know what those things were and wanted to jump over to that article. Besides, the article is pretty under-linked.Professor Penguino (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 1 definitely, maybe 2. No good reason not to link a president's policy articles in the lead, especially relatively decent ones. Easier navigation for a Wikipedia user, and it's what Wikipedia does universally across all articles. Not WP:SEAOFBLUE. Regarding 2, a link to the article on his tens of thousands of false statements (significant, and unique to his presidency where a User would want to navigate quickly from the lead). -Teammm ^talk? 13:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• NOTE: See prior discussion above. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Are the links necessary to provide or establish the context necessary to understand a given topic per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Lead_section and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Contextual_links? Does the following sentence (I rearranged parts of the fourth lead paragraph) need links to provide context for understanding the topic? Trump withdrew the U.S. from a major international climate agreement and rolled back more than 100 environmental policies and regulations in an aggressive attempt to weaken environmental protections. I don’t think so. It sums up what the body says in Climate change, environment, and energy, and that’s where the links are to Withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement and {{Main|Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration}}. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The parts of the 4th paragraph of the lead referred to in the above message appear to be the two sentences, "He rolled back more than 100 environmental policies and regulations in an aggressive attempt to weaken environmental protections" and "Trump initiated a trade war with China and withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal." With the proposed links, the first sentence would be unchanged and the second sentence would become, "Trump initiated a trade war with China and withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal." Bob K31416 (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is Trump the first former US president, to be nominated (and gotten a vote) for Speaker of the US House or Representatives? If so, should it be added to this BLP? or is it too trivial. GoodDay (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too trivial. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a serious enough nomination. Maybe if it was twenty votes, but not one vote. I don't see much media coverage taking it seriously. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should be added to the electoral history though. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Quincy Adams also got votes for speaker when he served in the House. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Mouse has received votes for many positions. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, since nobody mentioned it yet? I will. The fictional character Archie Bunker got a delegate vote for the 1972 Democratic vice presidential nomination. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but unlike Mickey the Mouse, Archie was fictional. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too trivial for a mention. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 07:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: et al, do we have any evidence to suggest that this is a particularly unusual distinction for a large company or prominent business figure? Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has Goldman Sachs gone bankrupt 6 times? Why are you calling Trump a "large company or prominent business figure?" Source for that?? SPECIFICO talk 00:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reasonable comparison, for reasons that are irrelevant to this discussion, while the comparison to Goldman Sachs itself is also completely irrelevant. I did not call Donald Trump a large company, I implied that The Trump Organization is a large company, and that Trump himself is/was a prominent business figure. Why I use both of those terms is because they are accurate descriptions and they are the basis of comparison with similar entities to assess if the amount of "state and federal legal actions" involved is unusual. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I requested a source because your "implications" are false, as you likely discovered given your failure to provide a source in response to my request for verification. SPECIFICO talk 22:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A source is not needed for the phrases I used, as those are not words I'm proposing to include them in the article. It's very strange that you would not only reject, but express that where others can see you doing that. The Trump Organization has much more than 200 employees, and Donald Trump is a very prominent person. I am thinking that asking for verification on these very obvious facts is some attempt at evading the initial question or something to discourage me from participating in talk page discussions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, especially not in a talk page. Anyone who's businesses are "involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions" is probably a large company. Secondly, Trump is a prominent business figure. You don't need to cite that. Everyone knows that. Cessaune (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that, and, according to USA Today, [t]he sheer volume of lawsuits is unprecedented for a presidential nominee. No candidate of a major party has had anything approaching the number of Trump’s courtroom entanglements, and he was involved in more lawsuits than five top real-estate business executives combined: Edward DeBartolo, shopping-center developer and former San Francisco 49ers owner; Donald Bren, Irvine Company chairman and owner; Stephen Ross, Time Warner Center developer; Sam Zell, Chicago real-estate magnate; and Larry Silverstein, a New York developer famous for his involvement in the World Trade Center properties. Due to the size of this article, I haven't added this USA Today article, used in the main article Legal affairs of Donald Trump, to the USA Today lawsuit tally we do use. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am comfortable with relying on this source for information. On the lawsuits issue, we shouldn't be comparing him to other presidential candidates, we should be comparing him to similar business executives. The key information here is that Donald Trump himself was involved in more like 3,500 legal disputes, with similar amounts as a plaintiff and as a defendant. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

USA Today kept updating the tally between the June 1, 2016, article and the final interactive tally five weeks later when it stood at 4,095. This is the edit, by a WP admin, updating the number, two weeks before my first edit of the article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the >4,000 figure, but assuming it exists as you say it does, I have no objection to that figure being used. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Similar business executives" -- Such as who on earth? You seem to be seriously misinformed as to the nature of Mr. Trump. Just e.g., there are hundreds of more noteworthy individuals active in NY real estate during the period he was active, and tens of thousands of more noteworthy business executives. The article text and source citations do not verify your vision of his business activities. Moreover there are extensive and detailed narratives of Trump's tutelage under Roy Cohn as to the art and practice of media and legal manipulations such as brought Trump to the spotlight -- briefly in NYC and then, when Gotham tired of him, to the broader cohort of his later support. SPECIFICO talk 23:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Similar business executives" -- Such as who on earth? Executive officers of comparable businesses. The article text and source citations do not verify your vision of his business activities. I have not expressed anything about any vision I have about Donald Trump's business activities, and any vision that any editor has on this is thoroughly irrelevant. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have dropped your objection to the longstanding content, so there's no need to continue here. SPECIFICO talk 04:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onetwothreeip: Are you recommending we delete the info, from this BLP? GoodDay (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly. However, it seems that these are better described as legal disputes than legal actions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the Wikipedia sentence, it looks very negative for Trump. However, looking at the legal actions/lawsuits/disputes in the source [13], it doesn't look so negative. For example, regarding 1600 of the 4000 lawsuits in the source there is, "About 1,600 cases involve suits against gamblers who had credit at Trump-connected casinos and failed to pay their debts." It's a misleading item and should be deleted from the lead. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are providing personal analysis of the source, which is not permissible. Zaathras (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is normal talk page discussion, not a Wikipedia article page. See the last sentence of the lead of Wikipedia:No original research, "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources..." Bob K31416 (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its almost a direct quote form the source "Close to half the court cases involving Trump and his businesses over the last three decades involved his casinos. About 1,600 cases involve suits against gamblers who had credit at Trump-connected casinos and failed to pay their debts. " Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But so what? Lead follows article content and sources. SPECIFICO talk 17:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reword it, as as to make it clear, so it reflects what our article is talking about? 17:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

You want to re-word it, to make Trump look less negatively? GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This raises an important point which I hadn't considered. While the amount of legal disputes with Trump's involvement is unusually high for a real estate business, this may not be the case for a casino business. If the amount of disputes is also unusual for a casino business, then we should include that statement. Otherwise, if it's not unusual, then it doesn't belong here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do any RS say that lawsuits concerning the casinos don’t count? Operating casinos was one of his businesses, and extending credit to gamblers was a business decision — a bad bet, as indicated by the lawsuits and the bankruptcies. The House doesn’t win if the customers gamble with the House’s money, unless you’re the mob laundering money obtained elsewhere. Follow the link in the text to another USA Today article, Trump casino empire dogged by bad bets in Atlantic City, for more information. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That article title appears to refer to bad business bets that Trump made, not gambling debts of casino customers. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My recent edit was reverted by Space4Time3Continuum2x on the following grounds: "If it's not in the body, it doesn't go into the lead. Unreliable source."

Would the content be suitable to reinstate if an appropriate paragraph was present in the Foreign Policy section? I believe it is noteworthy as it is one of the few positive policies that Trump has in his legacy.

It was also said that the source I cited was an unreliable source, while I don't believe that to be the case, there are many other publications which verify the claim including USA Today, Newsweek, and Reuters. - GA Melbourne (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a source that the US didn't get involved in any 'new' wars, during the Trump administration? Then by all means, add it to the page. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"By all means what??" We do not add everything with a source to our articles. Please consider NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 13:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dumb trivia, not worthy of mention. Zaathras (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree seeing multiple international publications have dedicated entire articles to the topic. - GA Melbourne (talk) 07:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth adding a sentence on this.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They were debunking social media claims, not writing news articles about Trump's legacy. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think with the USA Today and the Reuters source this can be introduced into the foreign policy section, but should not appear in the lead. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 07:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The three sources look at different claims. USA Today: This was the first four-year term without a new war since Eisenhower. They rated the claim FALSE. Newsweek: Donald Trump Is First President Since Jimmy Carter Not to Enter U.S. Troops Into New Conflict. Newsweek points out that, like Carter, Trump was only in office for four years and, unlike Carter, did order air strikes in Syria in 2017 and 2018; they don’t mention the killing of Iranian general Soleimani at Baghdad Airport in 2020. Reuters: Which U.S. presidents led the nation into new wars? Reuters verdict is false, saying that "[w]hile defining military interventions can be difficult, Trump is not the only president not to start a new war during his administration. … If we also consider other military interventions, Carter and Ford join Trump in not starting or escalating existing foreign conflicts with U.S. military involvement." IMO, using these sources to support was the first president since Jimmy Carter not to involve the U.S. in a conflict is SYNTH. It’s also trivial and luck of the draw - during his term, the U.N. didn't ask for intervention, and there was no attack on a NATO country, for example, that might have forced the U.S. to come to the defense of the NATO member. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All the articles come to the same conclusion though that trump was the first president since Carter to not start a new military operation.

Whether or not it was luck of the draw it's not for us to determine in fact the Newsweek article have the following quote from Thomas Gift, the director of the Centre on US Politics at University College London, "Trump hasn't faced a similar monumental national security event that's compelled him to shift focus and become a 'wartime president.' As a result, Trump's brand of belligerent isolationism has led him to avoid foreign wars." - GA Melbourne (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trump also didn't invade the Netherlands, or shave a narwhal. We don't list the things a a person didn't do in a biography, it isn't relevant. Zaathras (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Being the first president in four decades not to enter the U.S. into a new conflict is something he did do rather than something he "didn't do". - GA Melbourne (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did he, 'though? Or did Kelly or Milley or Miller or Esper distract him with plates of fries so that he forgot all about his plans to "take the oil" or Greenland by force? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have a source for that I don’t think it is in anyway relevant. See WP:OR. - GA Melbourne (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it significant no wars since Jimmy Carter? That is only about 40 years and 6 presidents. Also it may not even be true [[https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-modern-us-presidents-new-wa-idUSKBN2A22SN "Trump joins Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, John F. Kennedy and Dwight D. Eisenhower in not having officially brought the United States into a new war since 1945." note that Three of those are post Carter. Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That quote relates to officially declared wars. I’ll be sure in the edit (if approved) to stipulate that Trump was first since Carter “not to involve the U.S. in a new conflict” rather than that Trump was first since carter “not to involve the US in a war” - GA Melbourne (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which is the problem, how do you define it, its clear different sources define it in different ways. At best we would have to attribute this claim, which then leads us into wp:undue territory. Why is one newspaper view relevant? Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GA Melbourne: let me save you the trouble. Proposing anything that puts Trump even remotely in a positive light, isn't going to get local consensus on this talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is disappointing seeing whether or not it is positive or negative shouldn’t matter. The only thing that does matter is Wikipedia’s policies - GA Melbourne (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Most of the things proposed that place Trump in a positive light are trivial and relatively unimportant to him as a person. "No new wars since Jimmy Carter" is random, useless trivia that gets at most a sentence. It's not like there were no wars under him, just no new ones. WHy even include it? What does it even tell us? Cessaune (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is significant because it was the first time this was the case in 40 years (a long time). - GA Melbourne (talk) 05:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But how does that make it important? Cessaune (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

40 years is not a long time. Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GA Melbourne: We need to follow the weight of mainstream Reliable Sources, and this is not considered significant in that body of thought about Trump. We do hear a lot about Trade Wars and isolated military adventures like the precipitous withdrawal from northern Syria, the chocolate cake MOAB attack, etc. but this 40-year thing sounds more like a sports statistic, most times stealing 3rd base under a waning moon. SPECIFICO talk 12:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a trivial, arbitrary statistic. But Trump has used military force in other foreign countries under the broad authorization to use force granted after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. His administration has ordered airstrikes and drone attacks, supplemented allied militaries with U.S. troops, deployed special operations forces in the Middle East and beyond, and ordered the killing of Iran’s Gen. Qassem Soleimani, which critics claim nearly triggered an armed conflict. "With that authorization in place, I am not sure it is possible to start a new war these days," said DeThomas. "They all fit under the legal umbrella of the old one." ... Trump did not seek authorization from Congress for use of military force, or a formal declaration of war against any other country. He did not engage the U.S. in any new protracted conflicts during his four years in office. But Trump did order and oversee new military operations under existing authorizations, including counterterrorism raids that have spread to several countries in the Middle East and Africa. From this source. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and this points to the problem with the word: “war”. Putin made it illegal to call the Ukraine War a war. We still haven’t admitted that the 30 year Vietnam war was a war, despite over a million deaths. Eisenhower called it a “police action”. Grenada wasn’t called a war. The stat no longer has any meaning. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]