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

In my opinion, the format of the lede of the page at the time of this writing [1] does not comply with MOS:LEAD which states, "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate"; the page has six paragraphs. I tried to fix it [2], but User:Space4Time3Continuum2x reverted, with the explanation that my edit was "Not an improvement. The first few sentences should establish the subject’s notability. In Trump’s case there’s only one sentence doing that, needs to be separate from summary of education and career. His stand-alone, the two impeachments, need to stay in a separate paragraph." I will quote MOS:BEGIN, "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic".

Per Space4Time3Continuum2x's own opinion, "the first few sentences should establish the subject’s notability. In Trump’s case there’s only one sentence doing that". If there is only one sentence doing that, then even by their standard, we don't have it as a well-composed paragraph in the lede, in contradiction of what MOS:LEAD indicates that there should be. According to MOS:PARA, "single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text". Although in the page certainly the single-sentence paragraphs are minimized, there is still the issue that they can inhibit the flow of the text and, although it can denote emphasis, in writing generally paragraphs should consist of more than a single short sentence or be several lines long. I checked other president's pages (Lincoln, Roosevelt, Carter, Reagan, and Obama) at the time they were granted at least good article status, and none of them have more than four paragraphs in the lede, although Obama's has a short first paragraph.

My suggestion is to analyze whether it's the best practice to leave the first paragraph as a single-sentence or short paragraph and to copyedit and reform the lede in such a way as to at least comply with having four paragraphs per the standard of MOS:LEAD and don't break with the rest of presidential pages format of the lede.Thinker78 (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most mobile readers... that is 70% of our viewership... will only scroll down one time...thus reading only one sentence because of the current layout with a one sentence paragraph and giant infobox data. Our mobile readers will simply move on to another website to obtain information and if they are American it will most likely be youtube, facebook or amazon that are full of junk info. Looking to retain readers fix the layout...its why we have an MoS. A one sentence paragraph is a journalistic style that is not really encyclopedic. Moxy- 21:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thinker78, MOS:LEADLENGTH says that "As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs" and also that "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article." Of the presidents you mentioned, Reagan, Clinton, Obama, Roosevelt also have more than four paragraphs, and in FDR’s case two of those paragraphs ought to be split up into two each. (Then again, four terms, New Deal, World War II compared to Trump’s meager resume.)

Your edit summary said that you used Bill Clinton’s article as the model for merging the first and second paragraph. Clinton’s first paragraph does have four sentences but then, aside from two terms as president, he was also governor of Arkansas (two terms, non-consecutive) and husband of NY senator, secretary of state, and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. (IMO attorney general of Arkansas is not leadworthy, by comparison). Carter: governor of Georgia, Nobel Peace Prize for post-presidential humanitarian work. Obama: U.S. senator, first African-American president. Reagan: governor of California, fairly well-known Hollywood actor. FDR: elected president four times, New Deal, World War II. I’ll just quote Lincoln's entire first paragraph: Abraham Lincoln (/ˈlɪŋkən/ LINK-ən; February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865) was an American lawyer and statesman who served as the 16th president of the United States from 1861 until his assassination in 1865. Lincoln led the nation through the American Civil War and succeeded in preserving the Union, abolishing slavery, bolstering the federal government, and modernizing the U.S. economy. If we wanted to add something to Trump’s first paragraph, I would support adding the two impeachments, the incitement to insurrection, the false statements, the racist and misogynistic comments and actions, not the bachelor’s degree or working for his father.

Moxy, do you have sources for your statements of what Most mobile readers, 70 percent of our viewership do? Viewership, as in Nielsen ratings? Quoting from the most recent source (2019) mentioned on the linked Wikimedia draft page: How good is this data?

It has some limitations:

1. Missing older browsers (Android browser,chrome < 39, Safari, iOS < 11.3.
   
2. Respects “Do Not Track”
   
3. Anomalous large amount of missing data on mobile
   
4. Doesn’t perfectly capture “reading.” Only measures that the page is visible. (That doesn't capture "reading" at all, just "viewing".)
   

We collected sampled 0.1% of page views from 2017-11-20 through 2018-10-25

Just looking at the Current consensus should give you an idea how many times the lead has been discussed, and you'll find numerous other discussions in the currently 145 archives. IMO, the current version of the lead does its job serv[ing] as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents per MOS lead section. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Space4Time3Continuum2x, thanks for your reply. You stated, "MOS:LEADLENGTH says that "As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs" and also that "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article."" I understand it is not an absolute rule but your quote about the length doesn't appear to be relevant because Donald Trump is a long article that warrants four paragraphs. Besides, it has more than four. You also state, "Of the presidents you mentioned, Reagan, Clinton, Obama, Roosevelt also have more than four paragraphs". True, but I stated in my original post, "at the time they were granted at least good article status". You apparently read those pages in the current form, not the version at the time they were granted good article status. I included the links to the versions I checked. Regarding this proposal and its applicability to Donald Trump, "and in FDR’s case two of those paragraphs ought to be split up into two each", according to MOS:LEAD there should be no more than four paragraphs and well-composed on top of that. Therefore instead of making more than four paragraphs in the lead and splitting them because they contain too different info, maybe four well-composed paragraphs should be included with info that warrants staying in the same paragraph. After all, the pages are long enough to get proper material for the lead. Finally, I know it's not an absolute rule or policy, but generally it is a good idea to follow the guidelines to keep some order and proper format in the pages. Thinker78 (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is fine as-is, without your changes. Also, it is rather difficult to take any suggestions you have made seriously, given your "BUT BIAS!" attacks on other editors here and especially here. Zaathras (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zaathras, you stated, "The lead is fine as-is, without your changes." That's not how consensus is discussed. You need to state what guidelines and policies you base your opinion that is fine as it is. Arbitrarily saying it is fine just because you disagree with my criticism in other threads is inappropriate. Per WP:TALKDONTREVERT, "the arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever." Besides, in this thread I'm discussing layout, form, not content, so it is completely irrelevant the other discussions you point out.Thinker78 (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for editors to continually defend the longstanding status quo every time an editor dissents. The onus is entirely on you to make simple clear compelling suggestions, one by one, and try to convince editors to accept them as new consensus. If you fail, the established text will remain and editors are under no obligation to respond to anything you offer here, most of all if it is assigning them unnecessary homework. SPECIFICO talk 15:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, there is no need for editors to continually defend the longstanding status quo, because they can contribute Wikipedia when they want, they are not under contractual obligations nor are they employees. If you think the page needs to stay static without giving explanations, that's your opinion, but neither you nor any given group of editors WP:OWN this page. I understand there is a consensus about the content of the lead, but not the form. I checked the enumerated consensus items before my edits. I presented my opinion for analysis of other editors. I have to add that many pages have not been compliant with policies or guidelines for years until someone noticed and made the relevant edit to fix the situation. So a status quo doesn't necessarily mean a page should stay that way.Thinker78 (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thinker78:, you are owed nothing. If I have a preference for the current paragraph layout, that preference is not reliant on an intricate explanation. As for the other discussions, I linked them to give examples of your bad-faith behavior on this talk page. Zaathras (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zaathras, it is not helpful to attack my integrity, specially throwing false accusations about my editing. The discussions I had that you pointed out were within my privileges as editor to discuss issues in the talk page. I like neutrality in articles and I simply expressed my opinion about problems this page may have and Wikipedia as a whole has. "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums."^[1] Per WP:FOC, "Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor." The reason why I replied to what you stated is because you publicly accused me falsely of bad-faith behavior. Now, I request that if you have any accusations against me and if you want to continue said topic, bring it to my talk page and I would follow the proper process. In this thread focus on the discussion about paragraphs in the lead of the Donald Trump page. Thanks.Thinker78 (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC):[reply]

In the Donald Trump page as in any other page all it takes is for a large enough group of biased, like-minded editors to take ownership, quashing any edits that don't reflect their bias. Your words, my friend, and a shining example of a bad-faith personal attack against other editors. Comments like that can lead to you being removed from this topic area, so, tread carefully, and cease the slurs. Now. Zaathras (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Like-minded editors taking ownership and quashing edits not reflecting their bias" — that's hardly WP:AGF, even if you don't mention anyone by name. On this page, everything, including the formatting and the punctuation, has been discussed extensively. The page has a number of editors who have been editing this and related articles for years and act as WP:SHEPHERDs, not WP:OWNERs. Reliably sourced improvements are always welcome, insistence on someone's POV that's not based on new RS not so much. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:TPG the sole purpose of this talk page is discussing article improvements

Personally, I'm sick of the bickering and wish all editors here would re-read WP:Focus on content.........NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] :Thanks for tagging my talk page, and I did not bicker. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] Now you will be accused of calling them a sheep. SPECIFICO talk 14:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] Sheep baaad. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] Personally, I'm sick of the bickering, well, personally I'm sick of being gaslit by an editor in one thread, and they come participate in another thread like nothing ever happened. Zaathras (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] We should be alright as long as the sheep haven't changed their secret password. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] Could be a sockpuppet SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should do what is best to retain readers. Making our readers scroll 4 times before there is any real info is a deterrent to read on [3]. More data Moxy- 15:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your cited data is 5 years old. also, what % of visitors are android users? ValarianB (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

70 percent use non desktop versions ...this can be seen on any page by the "Pageviews Analysis" Wikipedia:Pageview statistics ..Moxy- 19:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get what page 14 of a 2014 quarterly mobile review has to do with the lead or this entire article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK in mobile view (all explained in the link) after the first paragraph we see the info box then the second paragraph...so in this case we see one sentance then a huge i mean huge infobox. So most will only scroll one time......meaning they will never read more than the one sentence lead paragraph. Moxy- 19:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a desktop fullscreen PC guy...... THANK YOU for this important education. When my brain is working better, if no one else has already dealt with this, I'll start thinking about it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is a project-wide movement to shape editing to accommodate non-PC users, IMO all of this largely irrelevant. It does no good to customize this one page to fit a presumptive attentiveness issue of Android users. I'd point out that, per Help:Mobile access, the Wikipedia does not seem too eager to address mobile users. All they get is a redirect to a slightly browser-friendlier m.wikipedia.org, the actual wikipedia apps are all but abandoned. Zaathras (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know little about Adaptive web design but one thing I'm certain about is folks are foolishly myopic if they ignore it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are missing the point. I am not against making Wikipedia articles more accessible on modern non-desktop computer interfaces. But a single discussion at Talk:Donald Trump on tweaking the lede of Donald Trump is a sub-optimal way to tackle what is a broad and project-wide concern. Zaathras (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our developers do think of this its why the infobox appears after the first paragraph despite it being coded before the paragraph. Its to allow us to hook our readers if you will. A one sentence paragraph is wasting the point of why we have the box after the first paragraph. On a side note a one sentence paragraph is something used in journalistic circles not encyclopedic content. Thus its assumed by our developers a paragraph will contain more than one sentence. Moxy- 02:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get the information on WP developers' assumptions? infobox appears after the first paragraph despite it being coded before the paragraph - as a non-coder I’m asking myself why/how it appears after the first paragraph if that isn't specified in the code (if/then or whatever)? Our first sentence does exactly what MOS Biographies' first sentence says it should do, i.e., "neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable". (Does Wikipedia even need to "hook readers", at 5 billion visitors per month?) I can think of a few things I would add to the first paragraph but I'm pretty sure that there'd be very emphatic objections. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After the problem of FA reviews moving the box down one paragraph we asked the developers to do this automatically. The article should try and look academic not journalistic in appearance read me. Best to look credible off the bat. Moxy- 20:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I learned that from 2016 to 2020, Trump served without money. Why do I see the whatever information Trump's salary in this article ?

In addition, in his term, this is 4 years without new war. Why they didn't mention it ?

Resource: 1, https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/02/27/president-donald-trump-probably-donated-his-entire-16m-salary-back-to-the-us-government--here-are-the-details/?sh=55e8fdd31a8d

113.188.106.56 (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Donald Trump the person, whereas you are discussing the Presidency of Donald Trump. ––FormalDude talk 02:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what you're posting about. Which is why 'twice', I deleted your post. GoodDay (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope some will write down about it. This is a clear-cut evidence why Trump is one of the best president in history. Whatever the smearing, I think It still take a little bit of more time for the population to understand completely about Trump.

113.188.106.56 (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Presidents Herbert Hoover and John F. Kennedy also donated their salaries, and it's unclear whether Trump even donated half of his salary for his last year in office. 4 years without new war or new "authorizations of military force" — same as Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, and Richard Nixon whose articles don't mention it either. He is now collecting (and not donating) $221,000 per year for the rest of his life, and the U.S. taxpayer is funding the rent Trump pays to himself for his use of office space at Mar-a-Lago as well as a budget for staff at that office. Also, you may want to find some better news sources than Facebook. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RSOPINION, "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. ... A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion." I edited this article to bring it in line with this guideline (removing two citations to opinion pieces and using inline attribution for another), but was reverted by User:SPECIFICO, who also reintroduced a misquotation. I would appreciate input from others about this issue. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to correct the misquote. You're also free to find other sources you think are more solid for the facts. SPECIFICO talk 21:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. SPECIFICO talk 21:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is very long, and "America First" only appears once in the body of the article (see MOS:LEADREL). Since we describe his foreign policy in detail already, and that's all the term refers to, I think we should merge that line with the following sentence:

In foreign policy, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, the Iran nuclear deal, and initiated a trade war with China.

─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 11:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]