Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 145

Archive 140

←

Archive 143

Archive 144

Archive 145

Archive 146

Archive 147

→

Archive 150

New lead

I have rewritten the lead in a way that I don't think needs any citations, and is less controversial. I tried to keep everything in there, and not take anything out (unless it was absolutely necessary, in the case of redundancy and stuff).

---

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.

Trump graduated from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania with a bachelor's degree in 1968. He became president of his father Fred Trump's real estate business in 1971 and renamed it The Trump Organization. Trump expanded the company's operations to building and renovating skyscrapers, hotels, casinos, and golf courses. He later started side ventures, mostly by licensing his name. From 2004 to 2015, he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice. Trump and his businesses have been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, including six bankruptcies.

Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist. He won the 2016 United States presidential election as the Republican nominee against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, while losing the popular vote, becoming the fifth U.S. president to win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote, and he became the first U.S. president with no prior military or government service. The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign, but not it was not able to find evidence that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russian election interference activities. Trump's election and policies sparked numerous protests. Trump made many false and misleading statements, promoted conspiracy theories, during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics, and his election and policies sparked numerous protests. and promoted conspiracy theories. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged, racist, or misogynistic and many as misogynistic.

Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries. He diverted funding toward building a wall on the U.S.–Mexico border that was designed to limit illegal immigration, and implemented a policy of family separations for apprehended migrants. He 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 pursued an America First agenda. He withdrew the U.S. from pulled the U.S. out of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. He initiated a trade war with China, that negatively impacted the U.S. economy which impacted the U.S. economy negatively. Trump met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un three times, but made no progress on denuclearization. but was unable to progress toward the denuclearization of North Korea. He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, His reaction to and handling of the COVID-19 pandemic was widely criticized, as he often ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials many times in his messaging, promoted enabling, and in some cases promoting the dissemination of misinformation unproven, contradictory and/or false information about unproven treatments for the virus and the need for testing.

Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden, but refused to concede, falsely claiming widespread electoral fraud and attempting to overturn the results by pressuring government officials, mounting scores of unsuccessful legal challenges, and obstructing the presidential transition. On January 6, 2021, Trump urged his supporters to march to the Capitol in protest of the election, which they then attacked, resulting in multiple deaths and interrupting the electoral vote count.

Trump is the only federal officeholder in American history to have been impeached twice. After he pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden in 2019, he was impeached by the House of Representatives for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in December. The Senate acquitted him of both charges in February 2020. The House of Representatives impeached Trump He was impeached a second time in January 2021, for on the charge of incitement of insurrection. The Senate acquitted him in February, after he had already left office. Trump remains a highly controversial figure—while many scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history, he still has a large following in the United States, and many people believe that he will re-run for re-election in 2024.

---

What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2ple (talk • contribs) 20:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Don't really see a benefit of this. ValarianB (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The benefit is that it feels less biased. 2ple (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Yea, well, "Facts not feelings" as they say, and what it feels to you isn't relevant. It reads like an OpEd, as others note below. ValarianB (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it's largely an improvement. It isn't as choppy and confusing. I don't like the use of a dash between "controversial figure" and "while many scholars and historians..." I think separating those sentences would help.

I don't think this eliminates the need for citations. It does read as marginally less biased, but people will still complain. But I do think this is an improvement on what is there. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

If it must be either/or, I'd relent and support citations on the current version. Rather than this watered-down, make-everyone-feel-better one. Zaathras (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

That is contrary to eveything we try to do with our articles and their summaries in the leads. And then you let slip what sounds like your underlying motivation -- to give it a POV slant in the name of removing citations. Nonstarter. SPECIFICO talk 23:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I mostly agree with ONUnicorn that this is an improvement, but that we should keep the citations. I do disagree with ONUnicorn about the dash; I would keep the dash.JMM12345 (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)JMM12345

• Oppose This would be a drastic shift that upends years of established consensus. Firstly, the writer of this text claims it eliminates the need for lead citations, a claim that I disagree with. The discussion of lead citations has been discussed in-depth in the above RfC, and that's where the discussion should be limited too. Furthermore, I don't think changes should be made to the lead in large proposals such as this. Take it one sentence and part at at time. That's been the practice of this talk page for years. I'm not even saying that all these changes are bad, just this is not the way to approach change. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Feels less biased" is in the eye of the beholder. We can look at the wording of individual sentences. I wouldn't object to adding "of North Korea" to the current sentence (but made no progress on denuclearization of North Korea) but phrasing like "it was not able to find evidence" seems to add bias rather than remove it. How is replacing promoted misinformation about unproven treatments with enabling, and in some cases promoting the dissemination of unproven, contradictory and/or false information about treatments for the virus not hiding any meaning under an avalanche of words, i.e., whitewashing (sources?)? The proposal also ignores Talk:Donald_Trump#Current_consensus items like 49. The proposed last sentence is not supported by the body of the article (sources?), and it reads like an op-ed. "many people believe that he will re-run for re-election in 2024" - WP:NOTNEWS. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  Hmm. Fair points. The motivation behind this sentence—enabling, and in some cases promoting the dissemination of unproven, contradictory and/or false information about treatments for the virus was mainly to take away the word 'misinformation,' as I think it makes the average reader's mind jump straight to 'disinformation,' especially in the case of Trump, but you have a point. I also agree with the fact that that last sentence isn't the best, so remove that final phrase. The one thing I don't like is the to a degree unprecedented in American politics, but whatever. It's consensus, so whatever. Add it back. And yes, I can see that I was wrong. This clearly does not limit bias, nor does it eliminate the need for citations. What I do think it does well is fix some of the choppiness (i.e. the whole fourth paragraph.) 2ple (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Choppiness is a good word to describe Trump's life and administration . Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics is based on the Donald_Trump#False_statements section which is quite long and has 26 citations. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

When I re-read that section, I realized it uses the word 'disinformation' when referring to Trump's handling of COVID, as opposed to 'misinformation' in the lead. Is this a mistake, or intentional? I would say that most of what Trump said regarding COVID was misinformation, but of course that's my opinion. 2ple (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The word disinformation appears to be based on one of the two sources for the sentence, USA Today, which cites an analysis published by Harvards's Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society. Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center analyzed 55,000 online media stories, 5 million tweets and 75,000 posts on public Facebook pages with millions of interaction and concluded that Trump and his reelection campaign, using Twitter, press briefings and television interviews, is driving peaks in attention to disinformation around mail-in voting, absentee balloting and election rigging, according to research published last week. We're not using disinformation in the lead, but mentioning the analysis by a renowned research center in the body is in line with WP:WEIGHT, IMO. I just edited the sentence to clarify that disinformation refers to absentee voting. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

These two sentences state: In 2020, Trump was a significant source of disinformation on mail-in voting and misinformation on the COVID-19 pandemic.

Next sentence:

His attacks on mail-in ballots and other election practices served to weaken public faith in the integrity of the 2020 presidential election, while his disinformation about the pandemic delayed and weakened the national response to it.

The source you gave only talks about misinformation pertaning to mail-in voting, and the two sentences directly contradict each other. Like I said, I would say that most of what Trump said regarding COVID was misinformation, but of course that's my opinion. 2ple (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The proposed revision is a POV tilt away from an exhaustively discussed and edited NPOV lead text. Please drop it. SPECIFICO talk 14:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, okay. The lead is decidedly not NPOV. I'm not arguing about the content of the lead, which I mostly agree with. I disagree with the wording of the sentences. For example, take the sentence Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history. It should not be, in theory, controversial at all, as it has been internally linked, sourced later in the article, and has been decided upon by consensus. However, it is still is controversial. Why do you think that is? It's because it is worded in a way that I think seems to convey a sort of widespread agreement that Trump is a bad president, which is not necessarily true, IMHO. Take this phrase: 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. Again, true. It's about the wording. He reacted slowly, I think, makes it seem like he is somehow a 'slow' president (which isn't necessarily untrue, but still). It would be better rewritten, I think, as His reaction to and handling of the COVID-19 pandemic was widely criticized, which I think more accurately describes his reaction.

If you can't see why people don't like the lead, then I don't know what to tell you. Yes, the content is there, but the way it is written kind of pisses me off, and apparently a lot of other people also. So when I say, let's change this, sure there may be consensus as to what needs to be kept, and I don't suggest taking anything out (though I may have inadvertently done so), but I do suggest rewriting it in a way that is more consistent with NPOV. 2ple (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Pro-tip - if you don't know what to say, please stop saying it. See WP:BLUDGEON. SPECIFICO talk 16:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to do that. 2ple (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Thats's the exact opposite of what the sources say, i.e., disinformation on absentee/mail-in voting, misinformation on the pandemic. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant disinformation pertaining to mail-in voting. 2ple (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose on several grounds. The biggest problem by far is the change from He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, a neutral statement of the facts, to His reaction to and handling of the COVID-19 pandemic was widely criticized..., which entirely omits the fact that he reacted slowly (not even including it as part of the WP:WEASELly opinions it reduces the rest of the sentence to!),and which engages in WP:WEASEL / WP:POV wording by attributing factual statements in the sources for the reset of the sentence to vaguely-defined "critics" instead. The addition of in protest of the election is also a serious NPOV violation in that it is, at the very least, certainly not accepted as fact that that protesting was his sole goal. The addition of ...he still has a large following in the United States, and many people believe that he will re-run for re-election in 2024. is, again, speculative, weasely, and vague; additionally, it implicitly weighs the opinions of his "large following" equally to academic experts, which is another NPOV violation. Overall the proposed lead has far more POV problems than the current one. More generally, I'm strenuously opposed to sweeping rewrites to such a controversial lead - there's nothing about any of these suggestions that would require that they be bundled together, so I suggest breaking this down into smaller discussions for individual proposed changes which can then be addressed one at a time. (That said I see little chance of most of the proposed changes achieving a consensus even individually, since they introduce POV problems to a comparatively neutral text - and since the fundamental goal here, if it's trying to "reduce the need for citations", is a clear problem because that means that whether you intend it or not you're moving the lead away from what the sources say.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

2020 Election Fraud

Watch 2000 Mules. Trump’s allegations about the election in 2020 being stolen are true. 184.21.136.147 (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The courts have said it's not, RS have said it's not. Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

2000 Mules is so dishonest that Fox News and Newsmax won't run it. Think about that for a moment. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Russian bounties wording

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

---

Does the following sentence provide the appropriate context that is understood the closing of Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 141#RfC Russian Bounties claims?

Trump expressed doubts about Russia's alleged bounties to Taliban fighters for attacking American soldiers in Afghanistan and never discussed it with Putin.

Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

WTH? The other RfC hasn't been closed. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The other "RfC" wasn't even an official RfC, and it's not an organized discussion that could be considered closable Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Abort this. Don't be impatient. Jumping to unnecessary RfC wastes editor time and attention and validates IDHT and TE. Your language was not successful the first time. Its not ok to escalate after it failed so recently. SPECIFICO talk 15:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I stand corrected, RfC Russian bounties - better wording was just a heading referencing the RfC. But you did ask for the discussion to be closed. Was there any kind of response? The title of this RfC ought to include that it's about the wording, and the short description appears to be missing a word or two. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

But still -- the wording proposed here was the first one suggested above in another thread and it was not endorsed and it should not be proposed again in a structured RfC -- that is not what RfC's are for. SPECIFICO talk 17:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

It's being proposed for the third time, now. First proposal, second proposal, third time's the charm, or something. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to see anything near that level of attention paid to improving the article with well-sourced summary content concerning Trump's relationships with autoctats and criminals instead of hindsight revisons of settled text that has been uncontested for these many months. It reduces well-informed editors to damage control at the expense of broad improvement. SPECIFICO talk 18:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I did ask for the discussion to be closed. However, after a brief discussion with SPECIFICO we both agreed a closure would not be helpful or even possible, so I removed the requested closure. SPECIFICO it's not WP:TE or WP:IDHT to try and reach consensus to fix wording that there is a current consensus against. If anything actively trying to obscure the process of changing a sentence that the community already has a consensus against is WP:IDHT. This proposition gained some support in the last discussion (3 supports, no oppose). Also, I'm not opposed to adding a second proposal to support here. I do believe this RfC is warranted as we had a informal discussion right above, being followed by a formal RfC. This is in accordance with WP:RfC. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I've warned you on your talk page about the above. But wrt this content, I see no support for your view before you launched this pointless RfC. And those who oppose your change have not !voted here, perhaps due to the reasons it's a bad poll, reasons that at least a couple of us have laid out. SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, this is what the RfC's closer wrote about the wording: ... there seems to be rough agreement that some coverage of the Russian bounty controversy and its relation to Trump be maintained, but that the current wording of the coverage could be altered or contextualized. How do you get the context "Trump doubted" from three sources that say the explanations from Trump/WH/other officials were inconsistent, i.e., "fake news" and "wasn't briefed"? Counterproposal:

Trump did not discuss the alleged Russian bounties offered to Taliban fighters for attacking American soldiers in Afghanistan with Putin, saying both that he doubted the intelligence and that he was not briefed on it.

As I've said before, the New York Times said that other commentators misunderstood the April and May 2021 briefings on intelligence declassified in 2021.

Hatted quote from NYT

Ultimately, newly declassified information shows, those analysts discovered a significant reason to believe the claim was accurate: Other members of the same Taliban-linked network had been working closely with operatives from a notorious unit of the G.R.U., the Russian military intelligence service, known for assassination operations. “The involvement of this G.R.U. unit is consistent with Russia encouraging attacks against U.S. and coalition personnel in Afghanistan given its leading role in such lethal and destabilizing operations abroad,” the National Security Council said in a statement provided to The New York Times. The statement was originally drafted and declassified to serve as talking points for officials to use in briefing reporters last month about U.S. sanctions and other punishments against Russia. The White House took diplomatic action — delivering a warning and demanding an explanation for suspicious activities — about the bounty issue, but did not base sanctions on it. The Biden administration did impose sanctions for Russia’s SolarWinds hacking and election interference. In briefing reporters, a senior administration official noted that the intelligence community had assessed with “low to moderate confidence” that Russia had offered bounties. The official, focusing on other complex issues, skipped over most of the newly declassified information that had been prepared to explain what the government knew about the bounty issue. Afterward, some commentators treated the bare line about confidence levels as a new development that amounted to the government walking back its suspicions from 2020. But The Times had reported last summer that different intelligence agencies, while agreeing on the assessment itself, disagreed on whether to put medium or lower confidence in it. The evidence available to analysts — both alarming facts and frustrating gaps — essentially remains the same.

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC) Oops, forgot to add "with Putin" before the comma. Fixed. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: The proposal is not terrible, but I do some issue. (1) It doesn't clarify that he failed to discuss with Putin, which would be very confusing to the reader. (2) I see trouble with saying he "doubted the intelligence" because I don't believe that is supported by RS, it's only clear that he expressed doubt about the existence. Also, can you please explain what you find so wrong about the proposal here? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

How about "he doubted the intelligence assessment"? See the last two paragraphs in the NYT article. Your proposal doesn't mention that Trump/WH/Trump administration kept waffling between different narratives.

BBC: "The intelligence assessment was first reported last June by the New York Times, … Mr Trump at the time called it "fake news" and a "fake issue". He later tweeted that he was not briefed on the subject because US intelligence agents had not deemed it credible."

AP: "The White House says that the intelligence community does not have conclusive evidence that Russian intelligence operatives encouraged …" "In June, The Associated Press reported that Trump White House officials were briefed on intelligence about potential bounties in 2019 and again in 2020. Then-national security adviser Robert O’Brien said Trump himself had not been briefed on the matter because the intelligence reports 'have not been verified.'"

Politico: "Top administration officials have been inconsistent in their explanations of the extent to which Trump was briefed on the bounties, but POLITICO reported earlier this month that the White House told congressional lawmakers the relevant intelligence was included in the president’s daily written brief in late February. President Donald Trump acknowledged Tuesday that he did not raise reports of Russian bounties on American troops during his phone call last week with President Vladimir Putin, suggesting U.S. intelligence on the matter was 'fake news.'" "Trump claimed Tuesday that the bounty intelligence 'never reached my desk' because intelligence community officials 'didn't think it was real,' adding: 'If it reached my desk, I would have done something about it.'

NYT: "Facing bipartisan criticism, the Trump administration defended its inaction by playing down the assessment as too weak to take seriously, falsely denying that it had been briefed to President Donald J. Trump. In fact, it had been included in his written presidential daily briefing in late February, two officials have said." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, Your counterproposal is questionable. A June 28, 2020 NPR article [1] reported that Trump said the intelligence community told him the bounties story wasn't credible. In the NPR article was, "The Pentagon 'has no corroborating evidence to validate the recent allegations,' according to a statement by [Defense Department] spokesman Jonathan Hoffman..."

From your message of excerpts: "US intelligence agents had not deemed it credible." Also, the AP source [2] in your message was referring to the Biden White House in the excerpt you presented, not the Trump White House. Your quote is from the first sentence of that article. "The White House says that the intelligence community does not have conclusive evidence that Russian intelligence operatives encouraged …" It looks like you were trying to say that it came out of the Trump White House when it actually came out of the Biden White House. Bob K31416 (talk) 09:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

AP source: you're right about the first sentence in the AP source. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support — Improvement over what is presently in the article which falsely implies that Trump should have brought it up. In the article there is no mention of any doubt by anyone of the existence of bounties. Trump, the military and intelligence services had doubts about the existence of bounties and later even Biden had doubts. See for example [3]. For reference, here's what is presently in the article

"Trump ... never brought up Russia's alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan with Putin."

Bob K31416 (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support it makes no sense that Trump would bring up something to Putin that his own intelligence community disputes is even real. Of course Putin would deny it and moreover use it to make American intelligence look weak. The intent of the original text seems to be leftover from when it was first breathlessly reported but before it was walked back by most sources. This should be corrected sooner rather than later. The proposed text is a much needed improvement. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  • "Makes no sense?" No, it makes lots of sense. Let's not be naive here. Never believe what he says, only what he does. When dealing with Putin, Trump's actions make lots of sense when one realizes he is viewed as a useful idiot and Russian asset (not agent) who is subservient to Putin, and he consistently acts that way. At the Helsinki summit meeting he expressed belief in Putin's denial which caused the whole intelligence community to condemn him as Putin's puppet.

According to Trump's own aides and biographers, he usually skipped intelligence briefings[4] and never showed real interest in understanding national security matters, and this was no exception. When speaking on national security matters, he often spoke from ignorance and self-interest, as noted by a judge's skepticism of Trump's tweets. So keep that in mind in this case as he admitted he was not briefed on the matter: Trump "later tweeted that he was not briefed on the subject because US intelligence agents had not deemed it credible...Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters the intelligence community had determined it had "low to moderate confidence" in the claims...due to the fact that the information was said to have come from interrogations of Afghan detainees."

So Trump lied in that tweet when he wrote that "US intelligence agents had not deemed it credible". (Stricken as those are not his, but BBC's words.) They had actually rated it "low to moderate confidence". Even if it had been rated high confidence, Trump wouldn't be likely to complain to Putin, just as he didn't seriously complain about Russian interference in the election, a much more serious matter proven with high confidence. In fact, he directly told Russian officials in 2017 he wasn't concerned about Moscow's interference in the U.S. election. He enjoyed benefiting from their help.

My point? We cannot use what Trump says about the matter as it, as usual, is not reliable. We never treat Trump as a RS, only in an ABOUTSELF manner. -- Valjean (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Stricken later. Valjean (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Here's a more accurate version:

  Trump was not briefed on the matter, yet he expressed doubts about Russia's alleged bounties to Taliban fighters for attacking American soldiers in Afghanistan and never discussed it with Putin.

Valjean (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The beginning of your version is, "Trump was not briefed on the matter,[1] yet he expressed doubts..." The full sentence from the RS was, "Trump tweeted he was not briefed on the matter because US intelligence agents had not deemed it credible." What you have is a false implication because you used only part of the source's sentence. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

?? I used the full quote further up so you could see the full context, but that context is not necessary for the point being made. -- Valjean (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Your version makes the false implication that Trump had doubts based on nothing. Your version left out the info in the second part of the sentence from the source which said that Trump tweeted US intelligence agents had not deemed it credible. Bob K31416 (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we're parsing the wording differently. Keep in mind that it is not a direct quote, but BBC's description. Trump "later tweeted that he was not briefed on the subject because US intelligence agents had not deemed it credible." (BBC)

Come to think of it, this fact means we should be more careful and not depend solely on BBC, as other RS have commented on the matter. He tweeted more than once on the matter, so we can't even be sure which tweet they are referring to.

Politico mentions there is doubt about the matter: "Top administration officials have been inconsistent in their explanations of the extent to which Trump was briefed on the bounties, but POLITICO reported earlier this month that the White House told congressional lawmakers the relevant intelligence was included in the president’s daily written brief in late February." The article is good. -- Valjean (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

So far you've got nothing to support your version's false implication, which appears to be OR and shouldn't be in the article. Bob K31416 (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Re "Keep in mind that it is not a direct quote" — For reference, here's a direct quote of the Trump tweet reported by NPR on June 28, 2020 [5], "Intel just reported to me that they did not find this info credible, and therefore did not report it to me or @VP. Possibly another fabricated Russia Hoax, maybe by the Fake News @nytimesbooks, wanting to make Republicans look bad!!!" Bob K31416 (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment- Thought there was already a recent RFC on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

There has been no RfC on the wording. Just a discussion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support the proposed sentence is supported and cited by RS, and establishes the needed context that is established in the previous RfC. A lot of the concern regarding this proposition, voiced above by Valjean, is that we are treating Trump as RS. However, this is simply not the case. We are merely stating Trump's response, not stating it as fact. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Quite the contrary, this version was rejected in the initial thread because it obscures the fact that in 2020 the intelligence assessment was that the bounties reports were correct. As Valjean has explained, the assessments from the following year were not the basis of Trump's having given Putin a pass on this in 2020. SPECIFICO talk 02:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  The article you linked to was on June 26, 2020. A June 28, 2020 NPR article [6], for example, reported Trump said the intelligence community told him it wasn't credible. In the NPR article was, "The Pentagon 'has no corroborating evidence to validate the recent allegations,' according to a statement by [Defense Department] spokesman Jonathan Hoffman..." Bob K31416 (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You opposing is not equivalent to being rejected in the previous thread. This proposal in no way says the claim of Russian bounties was false. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Remove sentence entirely: I don't think his opinion on this topic merits inclusion in the main article. If kept, "and never discussed it with Putin." needs to be replaced with "and claimed to have never discussed it with Putin." pbp 02:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a consensus for inclusion, but context is needed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support, it's a relatively minor issue and I don't think that more context is needed in this article. Alaexis_¿question? 18:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

References

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

There's some discussion of this close here. Posting this note for any feedback before filing request for close review. It appears to me that closer did not review the extensive discussion and sourcing spread over multiple threads before this unnecessary and largely ignored, thinly participated RfC. It further disappoints me that closer was unable or unwilling to note the distinction between what Trump doubts and what he says he doubts, a distinction that is widely noted and sourced. SPECIFICO talk 13:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the closing editor added an item to the Current consensus list, #58, that clearly ignores the reasoned and consensus view of this thread to the effect that we cannot state that Trump "had doubts", but at best that he said so after having been challenged repeatedly on his failure to act on what was then-current intelligence information. Not only is this contrary to the consensus of the discussion here, but it the closer also violated the page restriction of 24-hour BRD by reinstating this "consensus" after I reverted it. Having now elaborated somewhat on my removal, per 24-BRD, I am again going to remove it pending resolution and an amendment or close review. The consensus list is not a list of vague agenda items such as what the closer wrote in #58, but is rather a guide to settled questions of specific content, which even the closing editor does not claim to have determined. SPECIFICO talk 17:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to correct the flagrant error above, my close notes that this discussion did not achieve a consensus on a specific way to characterize these doubts, referring to the doubts about the Russian bounty allegations. The claim that closer was unable or unwilling to note the distinction between what Trump doubts and what he says he doubts simply ignores that part of the closing summary—which explicitly notes that the way that the doubts are characterized (i.e. as things Trump says he doubts v.s. things Trump actually doubts) does not have consensus. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I think you should consider implementing the compromise you proposed in the discussion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I added it (and did some copy-editing while I was at it). I removed the Politico source because IMO the NYT article is sufficient. Any objections or suggestions, anyone? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I believe your edit reflects the Verified NPOV consensus of the several discussions of this matter. I think that ultimately, as I stated above, this single incident is not really as noteworhty as Trump's general demeanor and words about Putin and Russia. When text is ultimately crafted to convey that, I think several of the periodic controversies-du-jour can be left to the sub-articles. SPECIFICO talk 20:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Y Looks good! Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

What's the problem folks? Disagreement over how to implement the recently closed RFC? GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes it was. I think it's about been solved at this point. I really hope it is Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Modifying consensus item 18

I propose changing the alma mater's parameter from saying "Wharton School (BS Econ.)" to saying "University of Pennsylvania (BS Econ.)". This would be more consistent with most biographical articles. The majority do not say the specific college in the infobox, just the university. For example, Barack Obama's says "Harvard University" rather than "Harvard Law School" which is specifically where he obtained his JD. Same is true for the alma mater parameters of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Joe Biden. It's just the standard practice across most biographies, and I find it puzzling why this page is different. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

No. Wharton undergrad is not a Penn BA. Its a separate program. SPECIFICO talk 09:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

The difference is the name of the school. It's Harvard College, Yale College, Harvard Law School, Harvard Business School, Yale Law School, etc. Wharton has a different name than the university, for both the undergraduate and the graduate schools. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Why not simply say Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania which is both its formal title and the title of its Wikipedia article? Needless argument. Goodtablemanners (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

For the same reason we don't spell out Texas Agricultural & Mechanical University. Needless formality. ValarianB (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Not linking to the main school is pretty nonsensical. And “BS Econ” is pretty grammatically frustrating. It is a BS in Econ. The way it’s written now seems like a dig at Econ. KidAd • SPEAK 17:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

To ValarianB: Except in the case of Texas Agricultural & Mechanical the title of our article is Texas A&M University whereas in the case of Wharton our title is Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Apparently those who created the Wharton article thought it was better to spell it out. I don't see why four more words would be a problem in an article of several thousand. Goodtablemanners (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Spelling it out just looks bad in the infobox. Makes it look cluttered. That's really the only compelling reason to not spell the whole thing out. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The formal title is The Wharton School, and Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia mirrors) in themselves are not reliable sources for any purpose (WP:WPNOTRS). It’s unclear from their edit histories why the three articles that existed about Wharton in 2003, (Wharton School of Business, Wharton School, and The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania) were merged into the one with the current name. The name of the school was Wharton School of Finance and Commerce until 1972. It was shortened to Wharton School on May 15, 1972. When people say "U Penn’s Wharton School" or add "at the University of Pennsylvania" or "of the University of Pennsylvania", it’s an explanation. Most people understand "university" and "Pennsylvania" without additional information, Wharton not so much. The infobox is already very big, Wharton is shorter than University of Pennsylvania, and we’ve had quite a few discussions to form the current consensus. The name is linked in the infobox per WP:UL, Proper names that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

References

which hundreds then attacked

SPECIFICO, the sentence said "hundreds" for a while. It was changed to "thousands" on February 13, and I removed "thousands" on 15 February because the body doesn't mention a number. Whether it was hundreds or thousands depends on the definition of "attack", the ones who entered the building, the screaming mob outside. I don't see any difference in meaning between "then" and "subsequently" but "they then" sounds a bit choppy. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

My only concern is that "subsequently" does not diirectly connect the attack to the rally at which they were directly tasked with marching up Pennsylvania Ave to the Capitol. Maybe there's a better alternative. SPECIFICO talk 21:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

New sentence:

At a January 6, 2021 political rally on the Ellipse(,) Trump urged his supporters to march to the Capitol, which hundreds of them then attacked, resulting in multiple deaths and interrupting the electoral vote count.

What's wrong with the old sentence:

On January 6, 2021, Trump urged his supporters to march to the Capitol, which they then attacked, resulting in multiple deaths and interrupting the electoral vote count.

On the Ellipse is a trivial fact that isn't important for the lead section. Neither is the fact that it was after a political rally, IMO. Maybe change which they then attacked in the old sentence to which hundreds of them attacked? 2ple (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Space4Time that the "they then" phrasing just sounded a little odd. There probably is some kind of appropriate alternative. I thought "subsequently" was adequate, and I don't necessarily think it implies there wasn't a connection between the events, but maybe a better alternative exist. The sentence may just need to be rephrased all together. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

"Next"? I don't think we have the sources (yet) to go with "consequently". McCarthy says: "... I asked him personally today, 'Does he hold responsibility for what happened? Does he feel bad about what happened?' He told me he does have some responsibility for what happened and he needs to acknowledge that." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't support the use of consequently for the reason you provided. IMO, then is better than next. I believe subsequently is the best option put forward, but reasonable minds differ. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Should be placed in the Trump administration article. Not his bio. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

References

RfC: Should the lead section have any citations?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is a very straightforward RfC in which editors discuss whether the lead lede should contain inline citations or not. While it is common to avoid usage of citations in the lede since that section of the article should be a summary of its body, where everything should already be cited appropriately, it is true that contentious material, likely to be challenged, can and should still be cited in the lede, according to MOS:LEDECITE. It is also true that this decision is done on a case-by-case basis, and so editors here tried to reach a consensus on whether those citations are needed here or not.

Some of the editors in favor of the citations said it will be more convenient for readers looking for the sources supporting the more controversial statements, and would also help reduce edit wars and complaints from new users and IPs. This was responded to by noting that no amount of citations would stop some users from contesting some of those statements, and could be used as a slippery slope in support of the addition of sources in ledes when it wouldn't be necessary.

Most compelling, though, were those arguing in favor of WP:BLP, a policy that is used as the basis for MOS:LEDECITE, which further justifies the citation of contentious statements about living people. While it is true that, historically, this article, as well as those of other presidents of the United States of America, have avoided the use of citations in the lede, the MOS does encourage its use when editors see a need for such, and this RfC has shown consensus towards using inline citations in the lede for the more contentious and controversial statements.

During the discussion, some examples were given as to which those sentences would be, but editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations, likely starting with those already presented by FormalDude. (non-admin closure) Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 23:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

---

Yes or No: Should the lead section of this article include any citations at all?
Relevant policy: MOS:LEADCITE
Previous discussion: Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_144#Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Citations
––FormalDude talk 19:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Previous discussions on Donald Trump Talk page:
Archive 12, Archive 19, Archive 26 with RfC clarification, Archive 29, Archive 41, Archive 70, Archive 96, Archive 108, Archive 138, Archive 142, Archive 144 Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Previous discussions on Manual of Style/Lead section Talk page:
2006, 2006, 2007/1, 2007/2, 2007/3, 2007/4, 2007/5, 2007/6, 2007/7, 2007/8, 2009, 2010/1, 2010/2, 2011, 2013, 2015. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Notified: WT:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government, WT:WikiProject Business, WT:WikiProject Donald Trump, WT:WikiProject New York City, WT:WikiProject Conservatism, WT:WikiProject Politics/Political parties, WT:WikiProject United States Presidents, WT:WikiProject Television. ––FormalDude talk 19:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 23:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• No. There should be none in the lead. There should be nothing in the lead which isn't amply fleshed out in the body of the article. Nothing should be crying out for a citation.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• No to citations in the lead. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yes – just by virtue of the fact that most Wiki editors either have not read, or do not understand, WP:LEADCITE (especially in regards to WP:BLPs). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yes for the most contentious claims. Per WP:LEADCITE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yes Many of the IPs that come here and complain do not read past the lead and then complain about a lack of sourcing. See Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 144#Introduction appears largely unsourced for an example that hasn't been archived yet. That was more mild than most. Since this article has challenged so often that we've devised an FAQ, citations in the lead are appropriate per LEADCITE. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• No There is nothing in the lead that a reasonable person would find objectionable or controversial. Zaathras (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yes. If we're following MOS:LEADCITE, which dictates that the lead must follow verifiability and BLP policy, then there should be citations in the lead. In some instances there may need to be multiple citations, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, which explicitly says Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. That seems pretty applicable here. Any material challenged or likely to be challenged should have a source, and WP:BLPRS extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced can be removed immediately and without discussion. This is a controversial article and we should back at least some of the most controversial statements in the lead with reliable sources. ––FormalDude talk 02:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yes: MOS:LEADCITE specifically does not say that leads should never contain citations: The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. Instead it says Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads and goes on to say that Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. I can't think of a page that is simultaneously more complex, current, and controversial than this one, and so we should lean heavily towards the side of citing controversial information. Loki (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• No: This goes for any article. Why are we going out of our way to further prove that Wikipedia is a popularity contest by singling out this article? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  It absolutely does not go for any article. Have you read MOS:LEADCITE? Endwise (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, per MOS:LEADCITE: Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead... Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. So things like "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist, and many as misogynistic.", "He falsely claimed that there was widespread electoral fraud and attempted to overturn the results by pressuring government officials, mounting scores of unsuccessful legal challenges, and obstructing the presidential transition", etc. need citations. Endwise (talk) 06:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Endwise, it’s your opinion that the two sentences you mentioned are contentious. Do you also have reliable sources refuting our summaries? I’ve put the sentences and the body texts they’re summarizing in the discussion below. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

What? Controversial or likely to be challenged does not mean "refuted by reliable sources", it means controversial or likely to be challenged by readers/editors. Allegations of misogyny or racism, or stating that someone has said something false is always by it's nature controversial material, and if you look at this talk page history you will see heaps of new editors mad about these statements and challenging them. I'm not advocating to remove them, I'm advocating to add citations to material that is controversial and is subject to challenge, as MOS:LEADCITE says. Endwise (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Endwise, if BLP content is actually contentious, there will be disputes over the truth value of the statement. I'm not aware of any source, reliable or otherwise, that claims that nobody has ever characterized any of Trump's comments or actions as being racially charged, racist, or misogynistic. Are you?

Note that the statement in the lead amounts to "he's been called names in the media" – not "he's a bad person who did bad things". If you want to convince other editors that saying he's been called names is contentious matter, you have to find some evidence that someone outside Wikipedia believes he's never been called these names. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes I would like to second Endwise's sentiments here. This is a matter of necessity under BLP. --216.24.45.11 (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• Yes per User:LokiTheLiar and User:Endwise. Many of the statements in this article's lead require citations for BLP reasons per MOS:LEADCITE. And even for statements that do not require citations in the lead, it's helpful for us to provide them in this article, because the article is long and the subject is complicated and controversial. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yes: material should not be removed from the lead if it does not have a citation there, but citations can optionally be added for convenience. This article is very long, the lead two paragraphs too long, and it improves the reader experience to find a citation at the point of reading rather than having to search in the body. Some sentences may be sufficiently complicated that they have no easy source, or even no easy three sources, and their sourcing can be left to the body. — Bilorv (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• No, per Zaathras. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, per my comments in the discussion area below. There should be citations for some of the more controversial/frequently challenged content in the lead. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yes per Iamreallygoodatcheckers and others for the most contentious claims. Per WP:LEADCITE. This will bring much more peace to the article. We have better things to do than constantly explain things to driveby editors and IPs. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  Many of the driveby editors and IPs lack a clue about the principle embodied in WP:V, and they wonder what all those little numbers are for (that pretty much described me for the years before I started editing). Most of those who don't are unshakably convinced that we cite sources that say what we want and ignore the rest. Anything negative about Trump is simply further proof of the vast left-wing conspiracy, regardless of citations. There is nothing we can do for these people and adding cites to the lead will accomplish nothing except to add clutter to the lead and make it less readable. Anyone who thinks this would end at "just a few" in the long term doesn't understand slippery slopes. As for LEADCITE, I apply guidelines when it makes sense to do so and ignore them when it doesn't, and it's my understanding that's how guidelines are supposed to be used. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  Actually you're the one not understanding slippery slope, which is a logical fallacy that implies there is no middle ground. We can easily cite just a few of the most controversial statements without it getting out of hand. It's not all or nothing. ––FormalDude talk 00:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  I have seen it happen too many times. People say they can keep something like this under control, then they don't, for any of a number of reasons. Empirical evidence trumps academic argument in my book. Thanks for the link to a Wikipedia article that doesn't support your statement. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 10:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  Fortunately, we don't operate Wikipedia based solely off what you claim to have seen. And, if you care to read, the article I linked says "The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B." ––FormalDude talk 11:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  You're correct; however, I base my argument and !voting on what I have seen (and I don't lie about what I have seen, despite your subtle accusation). You may have seen something different, and that's fine, but your position is no stronger than mine. You are becoming hostile and confrontational, and this is pretty much played out, so I'll bow out after quoting this that you missed: In a non-fallacious sense [...], a middle-ground possibility is acknowledged, and reasoning is provided for the likelihood of the predicted outcome. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 11:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  My statement that we don't operate Wikipedia based solely off what you claim to have seen is intended to imply we don't value anecdotal evidence. It was not a "subtle accusation" that you lie about what you see–I assume you don't. ––FormalDude talk 03:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• No per my reply immediately above. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yes - Many of the statements in the lead are likely to be challenged (ex. Trump's controversial response to the COVID-19 pandemic), so having citations to back them up is a smart idea. Interstellarity (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• No as wp:Lede is clear, if it ain't in the body it ain't in the lede and anything is the body should already be cited. Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Slatersteven: The guideline you linked says "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead." —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 11:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• No. MOS:LEADCITE also says that The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. I interprete "case-by-case basis" as referring to the individually proposed additions of cites to statements deemed to be controversial by some editors but not by others. We'll be back at square one, discussing every single sentence and which cite to use. We have a multitude of reliable published sources for everything in the lead. If we were to cite all of them in the body, the article would have a few thousand references instead of the 818 it currently has after quite a bit of trimming. Many of the IPs that come here and complain do not read past the lead and then complain about a lack of sourcing—well, that's their problem, not ours. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. Also, if they can't be bothered to read the body, does anyone really think they'll read the cites? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  Re your comment about "deemed to be controversial by some editors but not by others" would apply only to the case of statements that are likely to be challenged but have not been challenged. For the case where a statement has been challenged by an editor, that would be a fact and a citation for the corresponding statement in the article would be required according to MOS:LEADCITE.

  Re your comment, "the article would have a few thousand references instead of the 818" — There would not be any additional references if they have already been cited in the rest of the article, as required by the policy WP:Verifiability. The only additions to the lead would be items that look like this: ^[1] .

  The guideline MOS:LEADCITE states that there must be citations for statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and that there is not an exception for leads. Consensus would determine whether the case of a specific statement is likely to be challenged. Otherwise a statement that has been challenged must have a citation. From MOS:LEADCITE, "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead." Bob K31416 (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  That guideline was not written to refer to the small number of readers or editors who challenge nearly everything in the article, despite and against ample sourcing and editorial consensus. SPECIFICO talk 12:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• No as per Space4TimeContinuum2x. However, any controversial or disputed content should definitely contain any sources. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 20:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Callmemirela: The main concern of this discussion is adding lead sourcing for contentious claims. Just for clarification for me and the closer, do you believe it's ok to have citations in the lead for contentious claims? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Iamreallygoodatcheckers: The latter. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 01:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Callmemirela: It was a yes or no question... ––FormalDude talk 03:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  My apologies. I read it as "or" rather than "for". In which case it would be yes. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 12:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• No – The fact that this is a high-traffic article about politics does not exempt it from the MOS. Graham (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Graham11: The MOS requires citations in the lead in this case: "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead" per MOS:LEADCITE. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 11:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Yes per Loki above. WP:LEDE is not a hard rule against citations (in fact, it explicitly says the opposite of that) and I'm somewhat bemused by the number of people who think it is. Even if it were, WP:IAR exists. If any article would justify citations in the lead, it's this one: not only are there, as many have said, an abundance of IPs who complain about the lack of citations, but it can only increase trustworthiness for a controversial topic long-term. — Czello 10:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Yes MOS:LEADCITE clearly allows for special cases where having citations in the lede is more useful than not having them and this appears to be one of those cases. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• Yes: Many statements are likely to be challenged, like the sentence:

  Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history.

  Wikipedia:BLPRS says:

  all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed.

  So, I think some statements should be cited. I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 00:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• No Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section#References in the lead?Moxy- 00:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  Which states we often include a few references with any controversial content in the lead to prevent edit wars. Controversial content often draws fire and demands for references, so we usually oblige. ––FormalDude talk 00:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

What needs sources in the very generic lead. I see the same reasoning by a few but no examples.Moxy- 01:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

These three particularly:

Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics, and promoted conspiracy theories.

Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist, and many as misogynistic.

Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history.

––FormalDude talk 01:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

So we know how readers navigate [7] ...the TOC has clear sections related to what is said in the lead as does the main article links. Think readability is what is most important over any lead clutter including refs..we are alrealy loosing many editors because of the infobox size...as most will only scroll a few times then off to another search for their info needs. Wikipedia:When to cite#When a source or citation may not be needed. - Moxy- 17:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I just changed the target of the wikilink in Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and ... from the "Veracity of" article to the "False statements" section in this article, i.e., Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and .... Wouldn't that take care of the argument that readers are not able to find items in the body because the lead does not use the exact same words? This article also has sections with conspiracy theories, racial views, and misogyny in the headings. As for "ranked as one of the worst presidents", readers would have to read Donald Trump#Approval ratings but I don't think that's too much to ask. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• No. It has been a long-standing consensus in this article to avoid citations in the lead, as it would make an already crowded lead even more crowded. Anything that is claimed in the lead is already extensively cited in the body of the article.Mgasparin (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• No - the lede should summarize the article. Doing it here will set an example for other articles to follow. CutePeach (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• Yes for convenience. So people don't have to scroll all the way down just to get to the citations. People can scroll all the way down to get to the citations, however, they shouldn't have to. If they're just wanting to read on some basic stuff in the lead section, there should be citations supporting what's in the lead section in addition to the rest of the article. Having citations in the lead section also ensures that something that isn't sourced or can't be properly sourced isn't being snuck into the lead section under the guise of "leaving citations out of the lead section". With it being such a big article and a biography of a living person, having a citation to support almost every statement is a must, even if it seems a little nitpicky and not the best in terms of style.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Take a look at the "Current consensus" at the top of this Talk page and at the 144 archives. Nobody has been sneaking anything into the lead section of this article for a long time, everything has been vetted and discussed, often over and over again. Finding the citation for a given statement doesn't require scrolling, it just requires clicking on the wikilink in the statement. Since the lead summarizes the body, it seems logical that the statements link to the body of the article, not some other article (with exceptions such as places, positions, other people's bios, or definitions of terms). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Borderline, slight lean to no at this time. The heart of the matter here is the why we would add the suggested citations - is it truly to inform the reader and help them find more information on these controversial aspects, or to assuage the wounded feelings of agenda-driven single-purpose accounts? Would we add a citation to Barack Hussein Obama II (born August 4, 1961) because of all the old birtherism crazies? ValarianB (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Adding citations to claims that could be considered controversial to 50% of the country doesn't seem to be the same to me as "old birtherism crazies". Oversimplification, I think.

• YesIf a citation will improve the BLP and aid the reader in discovering more clarification. A citation in the lede is not prohibited as per WP guidelines. MOS:LEADCITEWritethisway (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Yes at the very least for the final claim in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickalittletalkalittle (talk • contribs) 15:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Yes — The guideline MOS:LEADCITE states that citations are required in the lead for the case of a biography of a living person when a statement is challenged or likely to be challenged. This talk page has had long discussions challenging statements in the lead and thus citations are definitely required. Editors who say NO to this RFC are saying NO to the Wikipedia guideline. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
• Yes. MOS:LEADCITE is unambiguous (to the point where I'm not sure a local consensus can allow us to leave statements about a BLP that have been challenged in the lead per WP:CONLOCAL) - The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead. There is no ambiguity there. The moment any text in the lead of a BLP faces a good-faith challenge, it requires a citation, and that requirement remains for the rest of the article's existence; and it is absurd to suggest that no text in this lead has ever been challenged when most of it is the result of successive RFCs. I feel that some people have a game-of-telephone impression of LEADCITE that focuses primarily on its second paragraph and which turns "redundant citations can sometimes be omitted from the lead based on consensus" to "redundant citations should always be omitted from the lead." But either way that does not apply to statements about BLPs that have previously been challenged, which always require citations every time they appear - they are never redundant and can never be omitted. By my reading the first paragraph of LEADCITE unambiguously says that a local consensus cannot remove the requirement for such citations. --Aquillion (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Aquillion, I moved the discussion to the "Discussions" section. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• Tremendous YES. In a world of Trump's making, where falsehood, ignorance, and indifference to truth reign supreme, we must rely on reliable sources. Fact: Donald Trump has never once used a citation. We can do better. For example, I believe the lead should be expanded to include copious sources calmly demonstrating to readers that Trump is regarded by a well-nigh universal consensus of relevant experts as the worst president in American history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.248.223 (talk • contribs) 3:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• STRONG Yes - The manual of style is pretty clear about this. Furthermore, I feel that citing controversial statements is aligned with the core of what wikipedia is, and to not cite controversial statements goes against our most cherished principles. Even if this RfC's !votes were 10:1 in favor of removing all citations from the lead, I would expect the closer of this RfC to still maintain the need for citations in the lead based on core wikipedia principles. If you want to debate what statements specifically need to be cited... sure, that can be argued. But to ban citations from the lead? That's nigh-vandalism to the project. And as far as arguing what is controversial-- almost everything related to this man is controversial. I don't think that can be argued against with a straight face. He is obviously controversial, that's why this talk page is so contentious! Fieari (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
• Yes for material likely to be challenged or that is controversial. Ltwin (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
• Yes for now I think it looks better without but wouldn't insist on that unless the article was FA. This one is not even GA so I think it doesn't really matter stylewise. Selfstudier (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
• Yes I typically don't like to include citations in the lede because everything should be sourced in the body of the article, but this is a rare case where everything is going to be challenged regardless. We will save a few edit wars and useless talk page discussions by including references.LM2000 (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
• No Other US Presidents do not have citations in the lead and nothing likely to be challenged belongs there anyway. Articles should be balanced, this one, and its lead, is very far from balanced. Let me summarize lead in how it reads.

• Paragraph 1. Trump was born. Trump was President
• Paragraph 2. There were 4000 legal actions against Trump’s company and 6 bankruptcy’s
• Paragraph 3. Trump’s views are extreme right. Trump lost the popular vote in 2016. Trump won the election however, thanks to Russia's assistance. Protests broke out in opposition. Trump is a liar. Trump is a racist.
• Paragraph 4. Trump is a racist xenophobe. Trump split up families. Trump shunned climate change. Trump did nothing to resolve talks in Korea. Trump caused COVID-19 suffering. Trump contradicted health officials, promoted bad medicine instead, and of course, Trump is a liar.
• Paragraph 5. Trump lost the election. Trump is a liar (in case you didn't hear it the first several times). Trump told his supporters to seize the Capitol building and kill people.
• Paragraph 6. Trump was impeached twice. Trump is the worst President in history.

Gee, I wonder why this would be contested, perhaps citations can help? Citations will not balance this lead and are the least of the problems here.

OnePercent (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you just supported my argument ("Mostly, though, the complaints weren’t about missing cites in the lead, they were about substance (e.g., don’t mention the 4,000 lawsuits in the lead). How is double-citing the source going to help in those instances?"), so, thanks? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Where is your argument? I'd be happy to post there. I only mention it here because citations are beside the point, people are making assertions that most of the content is going to get contested without citations, but the citations themselves are sourced improperly or cite opinion articles, and regardless of them, they are not going to solve the major issue this article has. OnePercent (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you are referring to, you want citations in the lead. I voted no because in general opening leads should summarize the content which is already cited and common practice of former Presidents has been to not put them there, but the lead has much bigger issues. In general I think I agree with you generally in premise, so you are welcome. I just took a different approach to highlighting the bigger issue here and ultimately, I don't think citations in the lead are going to help move this article beyond the current status of a"bad source" of information. OnePercent (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I take it that you haven’t read the discussion below. That’s where my self-quote is from. I’m a "no" on citations in the lead, and I do not agree that the article "is very far from balanced" or improperly sourced. WP:WEIGHT: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.. If you have reliable sources, for example that he didn’t lose the 2020 election or that he was impeached twice, go ahead and edit the body, and be prepared to defend your edits when challenged. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I have nothing to add or remove from the article as it is not my area of my expertise. I am only reviewing the quality of the article and from that perspective it has many many issues. You just said it yourself: "represent all significant viewpoints", that is not present in this article, but that's the least of its problems as this is merely an omission. The larger blatant issue is the article presents too much opinion that may "reliably sourced", but when the "reliable sources" are reviewed, they are either opinion articles, misinterpreted, or inappropriately cited. WP:NPOV Avoid stating opinions as facts. and this combined with WP:WEIGHT makes it appear biased regardless of intention. OnePercent (talk) 10:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• No While WP:LEADCITE does lay out scenarios for when lead sections should contain citations, I don't believe this article or this lead section meets those scenarios; nothing in the lead is particularly contentious or likely to be challenged, and everything mentioned in the lead is very well cited in the body. I don't believe they are necessary in this article. --Jayron32 16:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Generally speaking, I would say no, as the content in the lead should be cited in the body. However, this article is so long, and so many people only read the lead, that I would say it may be a good idea to source some of the more controversial statements. That said, I read through the lead today for the first time in several months and - it's not great. Statements are presented in an illogical order. The lead discusses the events leading to his first impeachment, but doesn't actually mention the first impeachment, then goes on to say he had a second impeachment. Someone reading this who has been in a coma for the last 10 years would be totally lost. I also totally understand why so many right leaning people read that lead and then come to the talk page shouting that the article is biased against him.

I'm tempted to take a stab at mocking a revised version in either my userspace or a talk subpage; then bringing it back here to try to get consensus. I'm just slightly concerned it would be a waste of time. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

After looking again, I notice it does discuss the first impeachment - but it's still confusing.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree the discussion of the impeachments is confusing.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

This is my thought as well. This article almost certainly qualifies as an exception to the "no citations in the lead" guideline, but the lead needs a rewrite for brevity and cohesiveness before we can really talk about what needs to be cited. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

That "guideline" does not exist. MOS:LEADCITE does not, and has never, said "Do not put cites in ledes." Anyone who claims anything else is wrong. Cites can, and in many case should, be placed in the ledes of articles, especially in the case of WP:BLPs. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

A lot of the lead section is based off of Current consensus. That doesn't mean it can't be better organized though, and I don't think it would be a waste of time to try to draft something. That is of course outside the scope of this RfC though. Rewritten or not, we should decide if we want citations in the lead. ––FormalDude talk 20:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Copyedit suggestions are always welcome. As to the content -- most of it has been extensively discussed and litigated, so it's unlikely you'll be able to make it more NPOV. There's not much to be done about ideologues coming to the talk page with complaints. They are free to do so and once in a while there are good suggestions. SPECIFICO talk 20:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• MOS:LEADCITE also says that The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. I interprete "case-by-case basis" as referring to the individually proposed additions of cites to statements deemed to be controversial by some editors but not by others. We'll be back at square one, discussing every single sentence and which cite to use. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Space4Time3Continuum2x: so your reason for wanting no citations in the lead is because it will cause too much work? All we have to do is cite a few of the controversial statements, it's not that difficult. ––FormalDude talk 00:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

To piggy-back on this idea, {{citation needed}} tags are sometimes erroneously added in good faith in lead sections anyway; a controversial article like this one is probably going to see even more edits like that, even if {{Leadcite comment}} is added. So adding the citations now might be prophylactic in reducing work. quin 01:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

FormalDude, Qsung, yay, a challenge! Endwise mentioned two sentences they consider to be contentious and in need of cites. So, let’s discuss specifics. I’ve hatted the body texts the sentences are summarizing.

Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist, and many as misogynistic.

Racial views Main article: Racial views of Donald Trump Many of Trump's comments and actions have been considered racist. He repeatedly denied this, saying: "I am the least racist person there is anywhere in the world." In national polling, about half of respondents said that Trump is racist; a greater proportion believed that he has emboldened racists. Several studies and surveys found that racist attitudes fueled Trump's political ascent and were more important than economic factors in determining the allegiance of Trump voters. Racist and Islamophobic attitudes are a strong indicator of support for Trump. In 1975, he settled a 1973 Department of Justice lawsuit that alleged housing discrimination against black renters. He has also been accused of racism for insisting a group of black and Latino teenagers were guilty of raping a white woman in the 1989 Central Park jogger case, even after they were exonerated by DNA evidence in 2002. As of 2019, he maintained this position. Trump relaunched his political career in 2011 as a leading proponent of "birther" conspiracy theories alleging that Barack Obama, the first black U.S. president, was not born in the United States. In April 2011, Trump claimed credit for pressuring the White House to publish the "long-form" birth certificate, which he considered fraudulent, and later saying this made him "very popular". In September 2016, amid pressure, he acknowledged that Obama was born in the U.S. and falsely claimed the rumors had been started by Hillary Clinton during her 2008 presidential campaign. In 2017, he reportedly still expressed birther views in private. According to an analysis in Political Science Quarterly, Trump made "explicitly racist appeals to whites" during his 2016 presidential campaign. In particular, his campaign launch speech drew widespread criticism for claiming Mexican immigrants were "bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists". His later comments about a Mexican-American judge presiding over a civil suit regarding Trump University were also criticized as racist. Trump answers questions from reporters about the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, condemning "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides" and stating that there were "very fine people on both sides", were widely criticized as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist demonstrators and the counter-protesters. In a January 2018 Oval Office meeting to discuss immigration legislation, Trump reportedly referred to El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, and African nations as "shithole countries". His remarks were condemned as racist. In July 2019, Trump tweeted that four Democratic congresswomen—all minorities, three of whom are native-born Americans—should "go back" to the countries they "came from". Two days later the House of Representatives voted 240–187, mostly along party lines, to condemn his "racist comments". White nationalist publications and social media sites praised his remarks, which continued over the following days. Trump continued to make similar remarks during his 2020 campaign. Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct Main article: Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations Trump has a history of insulting and belittling women when speaking to media and on social media. He made lewd comments, demeaned women's looks, and called them names, such as 'dog', 'crazed, 'crying lowlife', 'face of a pig', or 'horseface'. In October 2016, two days before the second presidential debate, a 2005 "hot mic" recording surfaced in which Trump is heard bragging about kissing and groping women without their consent, saying "when you're a star, they let you do it, you can do anything... grab 'em by the pussy." The incident's widespread media exposure led to Trump's first public apology during the campaign and caused outrage across the political spectrum. At least twenty-six women, including his first wife, have publicly accused Trump of sexual misconduct. There were allegations of rape, violence, being kissed and groped without consent, looking under women's skirts, and walking in on naked pageant contestants. In 2016, he denied all accusations, calling them "false smears" and alleging a conspiracy against him and the American people. References

He falsely claimed that there was widespread electoral fraud and attempted to overturn the results by pressuring government officials, mounting scores of unsuccessful legal challenges, and obstructing the presidential transition.

Claims of voting fraud, attempt to prevent presidential transition See also: Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, 2020–21 United States election protests, and 2021 United States Capitol attack At 2 a.m. the morning after the election, with the results still unclear, Trump declared victory. After Biden was projected the winner days later, Trump said, "this election is far from over" and baselessly alleged election fraud. Trump and his allies filed many legal challenges to the results, which were rejected by at least 86 judges in both the state and federal courts, including by federal judges appointed by Trump himself, finding no factual or legal basis. Trump's unsubstantiated allegations of widespread voting fraud were also refuted by state election officials. After Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) director Chris Krebs contradicted Trump's fraud allegations, Trump dismissed him on November 17. On December 11, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case from the Texas attorney general that asked the court to overturn the election results in four states won by Biden. Trump withdrew from public activities in the weeks following the election. He initially blocked government officials from cooperating in Biden's presidential transition. After three weeks, the administrator of the General Services Administration declared Biden the "apparent winner" of the election, allowing the disbursement of transition resources to his team. Trump still did not formally concede while claiming he recommended the GSA begin transition protocols. The Electoral College formalized Biden's victory on December 14. From November to January, Trump repeatedly sought help to overturn the results of the election, personally pressuring various Republican local and state office-holders, Republican state and federal legislators, the Justice Department, and Vice President Pence, urging various actions such as replacing presidential electors, or a request for Georgia officials to "find" votes and announce a "recalculated" result. On February 10, 2021, Georgia prosecutors opened a criminal investigation into Trump's efforts to subvert the election in Georgia. Trump did not attend Biden's inauguration, leaving Washington for Florida hours before. References

We do get complaints, mostly from IP addresses or new accounts never to be heard from again. If readers/editors find material contentious, shouldn't they back up their opinions with reliable sources? So, prophylactically or assuming someone backed up their opinion with at least one reliable source, which one(s) of our numerous cites for each sentence would you choose? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The first sentence is much more contentious than the second one. It's a common fact who won the 2020 election, we don't need to source that. Trump's character is not as widely known and by nature is more subjective and therefore more deserving of citations.

I'd use citation 1 for racially charged or racist, I think that's fairly obvious. For misogynistic, I found a better summarizing source (which wasn't hard–these topics have consensus for a reason) and added that to the body as citation 801 for Trump has a history of insulting and belittling women when speaking to media and on social media (the source describes "Trump's long recorded history of objectifying and sexualizing women and their bodies.") This is the source I'd recommend for many as misogynistic. ––FormalDude talk 10:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I haven't read the multiple sources for the first sentence yet, will comment later. AFAIK it isn't possible to name multiple sources, so duplicating them in the lead will add quite a few bytes. As for citation 801, I vaguely remember removing it from the article once before. It's an abstract of an article most readers won't have access to unless they're willing to pay $40 for it. The abstract mentions his "'gold-plated' pulpit to share and spread his misogynistic hostile rhetoric and propaganda" but that's kind of a stretch as the cited source for "history of insulting and belittling women when speaking to media and on social media." I'm about a third through the archived discussions, looking for previous discussions. Readability is one concern I've found so far for keeping cites out of the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I literally duplicated citation 1 in the lead with my bold edit last week, it added maybe 15 bytes. ––FormalDude talk 02:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

FormalDude, I finally finished going through the archives—see "Previous discussions", below. Felt like a trip down memory lane, even the discussions that took place before I started editing here. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

You have completely misunderstood MOS:LEADCITE, so this exercise makes no sense. "Controversial"/"contentious"/"likely" to be challenged does not mean "there exists disagreement in reliable sources", your objection that those who challenge the material typically do not base their objections based on text published in reliable sources is irrelevant. Of course the lead is (in this case) backed up by the body of the article which has reliable sources associated with it, if it wasn't, these sentences should be removed, not have sources added to them. And further, if a plethora of reliable sources existed which stated that trump never claimed there was widespread election fraud (they don't of course), the solution wouldn't be to add sources, it would be to remove or alter the contested statements. Allegations of misogyny/racism/misinformation spreading are by their nature controversial, and you acknowledge they are likely to be (and in fact have been) challenged. This is the scenario in which MOS:LEADCITE advocates for us to use citations, not disagreement in reliable sources, which is irrelevant. Endwise (talk) 10:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

No, I haven't misunderstood. LEADCITE is contradictory. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. is followed by The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. I'm going through the archived discussions on this talk page and I've found an admin's clarification of their RfC close "As concerns inline attribution" that appears to confirm my interpretation. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• I think that plainly, at a bare minimum, any text that has ever been the subject of a seriously-contested RFC should be considered to have been challenged (and that covers most of the lead!) The policy does not require that the challenge be successful, or that the sources or consensus support it. We can reasonably infer that the challenge has to have been made in good faith, and it's reasonable to say that a challenge made by an extreme minority of editors might be disregarded (ie. a single drive-by editor who provides no explanation at all), but both bars are overwhelmingly passed here - this text was seriously contested by a huge number of good-faith editors. --Aquillion (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

If there's no ambiguity, then what do you make of these two sentences in the second paragraph?

1. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus.
2. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.

The consensus on this page for many years has been to keep cites out of the lead AND that it's up to the editors to decide to keep it that way (please take a look at this discussion in Archive 96). If the consensus has changed, then so be it but the written-in-stone argument is not supported by LEADCITE. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Case-by-case editorial consensuses still have to be based on policy, which states all challengeable BLP material must be cited in the lead. That provision is not a supposed to be a caveat for editors to ignore policy and make up their own rules. ––FormalDude talk 17:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Umh—? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Re 1. — That's referring to the condition "likely to be challenged", not the condition "challenged". The guideline requires citations for statements that are "challenged or likely to be challenged".

Re 2. — Citations are not required if none of the statements have been challenged or likely to be challenged. This talk page has had long discussions challenging statements in the lead and thus citations are definitely required. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Note the precise, careful wording of the second sentence you cited: neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. If it said "neither required in any article nor prohibited in any article", it would support your position; but saying that it is not required in every article merely means that some articles exist where it is not required and, especially in the context of the blanket ban on prohibition in the second half of the sentence, heavily implies that there in fact are other articles where such citations are strictly required (ie. not subject to local consensus.) The first sentence is clearly just talking about cases where they have not been required by the first paragraph. --Aquillion (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

That’s assuming that it’s "precise, careful wording" and not just a wordy version of "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required nor prohibited." The sentence was removed with the edit summary Removed redundant statement. It adds nothing to what has already been said in the 2 paras above, and reinstated with the summary summarizes, and makes the content of Template:Not verified in body easier to understand. The template documentation says about its usage that More specifically, many articles, including the bulk of featured articles, do not contain any citations in the lead, because the lead section in them is used to summarize the content in the body of the article, which already contains citations for the summarized content. Thus, this template should only be used:

*In articles which already have substantial sourcing; and

*The lead is clearly written as a summary of the content; but

*One of the facts in the lead is not verified in the article's body and you seek verification of that fact.

I don’t think the first two bullet points can be disputed. I don’t remember ever having seen the template used in the lead but there were a few times when readers sought verification on the Talk page. Mostly, though, the complaints weren’t about missing cites in the lead, they were about substance (e.g., don’t mention the 4,000 lawsuits in the lead). How is double-citing the source going to help in those instances?

I’ve slogged through the history of the Lead_section#Citations in the the archives of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section looking for the source of "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead", in vain. W:V merely states that "material … must be verifiable and that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations" (we’re not using any quotations in the lead); W:BLPSOURCE similarly that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". MOS is style, not policy. If anybody wants to take a look at the discussions, here’s the list: 2006, 2006, 2007/1, 2007/2, 2007/3, 2007/4, 2007/5, 2007/6, 2007/7, 2007/8, 2009, 2010/1, 2010/2, 2011, 2013, 2015. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I think that this is just another version of the age-old, never-completely-settled question of whether information mentioned twice in an article must always have two separate inline citations, or whether it's enough to cite once. In practice, as opposed to theory, we have mostly decided that contentious matter about BLPs, some kinds of statistics, and direct quotations (which tend not to repeated throughout an article) get more citations than usual.

Implementing this, in turn, depends on editors' judgment about what's "contentious". Contentiousness is more about disputed-ness than about negativity, and it requires reading what's actually being written. For example, it may be contentious whether some of Trump's comments and actions "actually were" racist, but it is not the least bit contentious whether some Trump's comments and actions "have been characterized as" racist.

Also, in practice, we basically don't follow the "every time" rule because Wikipedia:Citation overkill#Needless repetition. We generally assume that if you've got a citation in one sentence or paragraph, the reader will not forget that by the next paragraph.

In case it is useful to anyone, the particular "inline citation every time they are mentioned" began life a mere eleven minutes after the original creation of the LEADCITE section. The first version said Where articles comment on living persons, citations should be provided for every iteration of potentially negative material, in the lead and body both, regardless of redundancy. and the whole thing was removed 46 minutes later by a FAC regular. The next week, after discussions, we see Contentious material about living persons and quotations should be cited in the lead if they appear there. A few days later, @Quadell protected the page to stop the edit warring. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Previous discussions on citations in lead

Considering the size of the archives, there hasn’t been that much discussion. "No cites in the lead" was the consensus. I may have missed some discussions whose headings didn’t mention the lead or citations or when I got sidetracked into reading various discussions. Archive 12, Archive 19, Archive 26 with RfC clarification, Archive 29, Archive 41, Archive 70, Archive 96, Archive 108, Archive 138, Archive 142, Archive 144

A couple of quotes from Archive 96:

1. Long-standing consensus at this article has it that the cost of citations in the lead (visual clutter) would exceed their benefit. Editors make an effort to ensure that the lead summarizes cited content in the body. More generally, I would argue that "unusual" does not equate to "strange" and is anything but a Bad Thing; rather, emphasis on consistency tends to ensure consistently mediocre content. It would be different if there were a community consensus that leads should have cites, but there is not one. The community has left this to our discretion, and we have exercised it. (Editor Mandruss, 23:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC))
2. I’m generally opposed to having citations in the lede of any article, but most especially the fulsome biographies you often get with politicians. Citations in the lede of a US president are extremely rare. The most recent president with citations (and only a couple) is Jimmy Carter, and before that JFK, so it's been a long standing convention to avoid them. (Editor Scjessey, 13:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• I understand we've had previous discussions on this issue, but we've never had an RfC. Isn't an RfC supposed to be the near binding precedent of an issue? All digging up old discussion does is say this has been an issue for a long ever. Surely, none of these little non-closable discussions have the ability to counter the consensus of an RfC. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Do I understand you correctly that you are now arguing that local consensus takes precedence over LEADCITE? Your sole argument for using cites in the lead is "Per WP:LEADCITE." The previous discussions as well as this one show that there were and are different interpretations of LEADCITE. It isn't as carved in stone as most of the "yes" votes claim it is. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: My argument is that LEADCITE encourages lead citations for contentious claims, especially in BLP's. LEADCITE isn't written in stone, and I suppose a strong editorial consensus at a local level could counter it. I'm just not seeing the compelling reason to depart from the guideline. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Close

• I requested for this discussion to be closed at WP:Close requests. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Slight Adjustment

In the third paragraph, the article states that Trump made many false and misleading statements during his presidency, or something along those lines. I suggest that we change that to something along the lines of “Trump made many statements during his presidency that some consider to be false or misleading.” I think this would be a worthwhile change, as it will adhere more to the neutrality policy of Wikipedia while also not making too substantial of a change to the article. Thanks! 2600:8800:E0B:1600:A558:6CA1:BF9B:4450 (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

See consensus item 49. The current wording is settled consensus. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

IP2600, you're asking us to violate NPOV. NPOV is mostly about an editorial POV and attitude while editing. It requires editors to edit neutrally. By contrast, it explicitly allows use of non-neutral sources/opinions/wordings. Editors are supposed to document what RS say and not get in the way by neutering, censoring, or otherwise manipulating content to say something different than what the sources say. We are not allowed to change the meaning.

That Trump is a serial liar and usually dishonest is not an opinion. It's a proven fact backed by numbers. If we followed your advice, and he were to say that a red apple was yellow, we would write that some consider him to have lied, which leaves doubt about a bald faced lie. His lies are often of that type.

There is no question, and many professional fact-checkers agree that he sets a rather uniquely shocking record for dishonesty. That's why we describe what RS say about the matter without inserting our own equivocation or doubts. That's what NPOV requires of us. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Can you please quote the section of the neutrality policy that you think the current wording violates. TFD (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Where's Donald's Connections with NYC Mafia

Where is the history of Donald's extensive connections and involvement with the NYC Mafia, such as boss Fat Tony Salerno, or Trump employee, Felix Slater? There have been a number of reports or articles about it over the years, with a recent refocus of it during his 2015-2016 presidential campaign. Why was this information removed from the article? Did Donald Trump or his associates remove this? I don't remember how developed it was on here, but there is a reasonably extensive history on it, including the federal Grand Jury investigation that was conducted on Donald Trump in the 1990s by the Southern District of NY and quietly dismissed through the influence of his sister, who was employed as an ADA in that office at the time.

Are there other Trump articles (that I am not mentioning or have overlooked) that should be included in a See Also Section? is there a separate Wikipedia article on his personal upbringing, or other aspects of his history?While the articles from Internet 1.0 are likely forever gone from our inclusion here through article/forum scrubbing and media aging, too much seems to be missing from this article, that was once here. It warrants a deeper look into what has been removed and refrabricated, either by Trump devotees or paid editors...Stevenmitchell (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

While I have certainly read a couple of texts on Trump's mafia connections online, Wikipedia tends to avoid citing allegations due to the policy on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.:

• • "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Dimadick (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The public usually doesn't find out about Grand Jury investigations that are quietly dismissed. Where did you get this information? According to Trump biographer David Cay Johnston, there was a Grand Jury investigation in Brooklyn concerning the sale of the Penn Central railroad yards to Trump Enterprises, Inc., in 1975 but Johnston doesn't specify the date of the investigation. Maryanne Trump Barry was an ADA and a federal judge in New Jersey, not New York. (Well, there was the 1985 case of the Weichselbaum brothers who lived in NYC (Trump Tower), owned a Florida-based business that provided helicopter services between Manhattan and Trump's Atlantic City casinos, and were accused of drug trafficking from Colombia to Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, and somehow their case ended up before Judge Barry in New Jersey. She recused herself three weeks later because "she had flown in the helicopter of a confessed drug trafficker.") There are or were a few mentions of — let's say — "mob-adjacency" in the articles on some of Trump's buildings, e.g. Trump Tower, and on Trump's lawyer/fixer Roy Cohn, who was also the lawyer of a bunch of mobsters. A number of Trump biographers (Wayne Barrett, Timothy O'Brien, David Cay Johnston, and others) have written about the (alleged) mob connections. Felix Sater may have been mentioned in this article because of Trump's plans to build a Trump Tower in Moscow continuing while he was already running for president in 2015/2016. After Trump became president, current events bloated this article to its present size, and quite a bit of the earlier biography was removed as less important. As Dimadick said, there are also WP:BLP concerns. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Deciding what to cite in the lede

To start off the discussion, here's three sentences that appear to be deserving of a citation, and the sources from the body that best verify them.

1. Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics, and promoted conspiracy theories.
2. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist, and many as misogynistic.
3. Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history.

References

Since the sources already exist in the body, they'll be easy to duplicate in the lead without adding much size (example). I do think it's best to start out with only a few citations at first for the most controversial content. ––FormalDude talk 01:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude: that's a good start. I would encourage you to WP:BOLDly implement them. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Uh - pointing out that there's no consensus on which sentences need citations. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you're right that "there's no consensus on which sentences need citations," but WP:BOLD still exist. There has yet to be BOLD edit following the consensus to add lead citations. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't read editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations as meaning "to boldly go" first and then discuss. I'm trying to muster enough energy (and overcome my inner resistance) to go through past archives to look up the sentences that elicited the most whining from SPAs and IP editors, to quote Zaathras, and what reasons, if any, were given. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I would only support a citation for the historical rankings at this time, as that one seems to have elicited the most whining from SPAs and IP editors. Let's start modest and expand if needed. Zaathras (talk) 02:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• The first step is getting consensus on which sentences need citations, and then finding consensus on which citations are appropriate. We should do this one sentence at a time, or we'll get another endless discussion of the "A/not B/not C, not A/B/not C" type. (IMO, the argument for proposing a sentence in need of a citation ought to be more substantial than "appear to be".) Also, some quibbling on a source. For the second time now, you have You reinserted an abstract of a journal article that I've challenged in the body. It would cost me (and presumable the majority of readers) $40 to purchase, and you’re proposing to use it as a source in the lead for material challenged or likely to be challenged (citing your comment in the RfC). Our lead (summary) needs to repeat citations given in the full text, but I'm supposed to accept an Abstract (summary) of a full text that I can't read for verification of the claims made in the abstract? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC) My apology for the error. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @Space4Time3Continuum2x: A source costing money to access does not mean it can't be a usable quality reference. It's a full length article that is available for free to anyone who has access to TWL. It verifies the content reliably–that's what matters. This would also be the first time I've reinserted the source that you challenged (not the second), and I did it because I did not see your challenge. If you want to discuss that further though it should be done outside of this discussion since that source is for the body. Its only relevance to this discussion is as an option of two I provided for sourcing the misogynistic claim in the lede, and that was merely a proposal. Though, it should be fine for the lede for the same reason it is fine for the body.

Also, I disagree with your recommended method for discussing this matter. The lead is based on the body and frequently explicit consensus from the talk page, so it's easy to find what the proper source should be; I don't think we'll find much disagreement on that. We mainly need to focus on deciding what contentious and/or challengable statements should be sourced. ––FormalDude talk 10:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

My bad. I didn’t know that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia by Wikipedia editors for Wikipedia editors. How many members of the general public — bold assumption on my part that that is our intended audience — have access to TWL or easy access through "a local library or university, or another institution or organization"? In order to complete your request, Library Card needs permission to access information about you, including your email address, on all projects of this site. No changes will be made with your account. I looked at the sign-up page and the terms of use and privacy statement, in particular the Important Note, when I got the notification on January 26 and decided against signing up.

Also, huh? The lead is based on the body and frequently explicit consensus from the talk page, so it's easy to find what the proper source should be; I don't think we'll find much disagreement on that. That is my argument for keeping cites out of the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

See WP:SOURCEACCESS. ––FormalDude talk 08:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, but in this instance we already have several reliable and readily available sources. We don't need a source about the "Trump Administration’s efforts—through law and words—to turn back the clock for women" that is not readily available and is probably better suited for the Presidency of Donald Trump article in any case. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Those 3 sentences belong in the Trump administration article, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Moving lead sentence "Trump's election and policies sparked numerous protests" to the end of the paragraph

I suggest we move the lead sentence "Trump's election and policies sparked numerous protests" to the end of the lead paragraph from the middle of it. As written, it reads to me like the protests are in reaction to the Russian interference issue. I think it makes more sense to first enumerate the issues protests were in reaction to (racism, conspiracy theories, etc), then after that to mention the protests.

I am posting the edit here because the sentence is marked "DO NOT CHANGE this sentence without prior consensus" and Zaathras complained on that basis with the move. As I wasn't editing the sentence, just moving it, I figured I was following the letter of the law, but I have no objection to following process here. As an aside, it might make sense to follow what was done for the Climate Change article and mark the entire lead section with "Please do not change the content in the lead section without prior discussion" instead of just selectively fencing off a few sentences.

Anyhow, I'm thinking I just wait a day to see if there's any objections to the edit, and if not I'll make the edit tomorrow. Let me know if there's a different system or objections to the edit (or in support of it). Thanks! --Efbrazil (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd prefer a move a couple sentences earlier so it comes right after the sentence about winning the election (ending in "... government service"). I'm neutral on the proposed change vs. the status quo. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose moving the sentence to the end of the paragraph. It used to follow the sentence about winning the election (ending in "... government service") for years, then some idiot moved the Mueller investigation from the fifth paragraph up to the third and added it in the wrong place. The idiot in question being me, I just moved the sentence back to where it belongs. "Policies" refers to the political positions mentioned in the first sentence of the paragraph. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks- your changes work for me, although I don't know about process here since you touched one of the blessed sentences. Efbrazil (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I should have added another note to consensus item 20, explaining that I changed the personal pronoun to the name last year because the noun in the added sentence wasn't Trump. The sentence is now back where it belongs, and the consensus wording has been restored. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Removing bias regarding trade tariffs from the article

I have been attempting to add information to the article regarding Trump tariffs that is getting reverted. The article currently has clear bias where we say things like "failure" based on opinion pieces and instead of data. Here are the facts:

1. The trade deficit with China went down after the tariffs were imposed. This is clear according to United States Census Data, shown here on an annualized basis: https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html

I added a chart with that information here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Trade_Deficit.svg

I also removed the characterization that "the deficit reached its highest level in 12 years under his administration", which is a statement that could be made about any of our recent presidents if you just look at the chart. The facts are that the results of the trade war are mixed. The edit was reverted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=1088669286&oldid=1088655265

Don't you think the chart is a better characterization of the trade war than a sentence using a single data point to characterize the effects of the trade war as "nothing"?

2. I tried to remove the highly biased statement that the tariffs were "a failure" based on sourcing to liberal and business interest opinion articles. The edit was reverted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=1088669796&oldid=1088669286

Shouldn't we avoid saying things like "failure" based on opinion pieces and stick to facts instead?

3. If we are to going say things like "failure", then I figure we should probably add that Biden has kept the Trump tariffs in place. I guess he likes failures! I added that information from this source: https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/26/politics/china-tariffs-biden-policy/index.html

The edit was reverted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=1088697893&oldid=1088697341

I guess because the editors here don't want Biden portrayed as a failure. That's Trump's role, right?

Look, all I am trying to do is replace clear bias in this article regarding trade with the facts of the matter. It looks to me like the editors here want to suppress any facts that don't portray Trump in a purely negative light. Is there any piece of information above regarding trade that anybody thinks we should put in the article, or has Trump derangement syndrome overtaken the editors of this article? Efbrazil (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

"The article currently has clear bias". That should be the end of any discussion. We do not remove bias from RS here. We document it, including non-neutral language. Also, edit warring and original research are not allowed, NO MATTER if you are 100% correct. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Bias is in which articles are selectively used. What I was trying to do was remove opinion pieces and state facts, which I think is kind of the point of Wikipedia (consensus and facts, not one person's opinion). I did no original research, and all my edits were seeking consensus, not edit warring. Efbrazil (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

deficit reached its highest level in 12 years is noteworthy because Trump had pledged to "sharply lower" it, per the source. Chart: It's not a characterization of the trade war at all because there may have well have been other factors that influenced the trade deficit, the pandemic, a war, the Ever Given, stuff reliable sources would factor into their reporting. (Also a spelling error, unless you want to include some other crisis or crises that occurred in 2008.) Bias: yeah, Trump Derangement Syndrome sounds totally unbiased. If you have RS saying Trump's trade war was a success or that it was not the failure other sources say it was, please present them. Biden: The appropriate page would be the one on Biden. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for seeing "crises", corrected spelling to crisis.

Regarding the rest, by the numbers the trade deficit with China dropped dramatically in 2019, before the pandemic kicked in (and after tariffs). This is not like the size of crowds at his inauguration or his reelection loss. The result of the trade war is highly disputed and there is no "fact" that says it was a "failure", just opinion. I'm sure there are plenty of sources on fox news or brietbart or wherever talking about how it's a huge success, but it's clearly not a "success" any more than it's a "failure". It's a complicated policy issue that we are grossly oversimplifying. Here are a few sources with some good reporting describing the mixed results:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/05/politics/trade-deficit-falls-2019-trump/index.html

https://www.marketplace.org/2022/02/25/what-has-the-u-s-china-trade-war-achieved/

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/26/politics/china-tariffs-biden-policy/index.html Efbrazil (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• We need reliable secondary sourcing to draw conclusions from graphs and to indicate which conclusions are significant. The conclusions you removed were cited to eg. the AP. And it's simply untrue that the citations you removed to the Brookings institute, Bloomberg, or CNN are considered liberal and business interest opinion articles; the Brookings Institution is perhaps the most well-regarded think-tank in the world and is generally considered roughly neutral, while Bloomberg and CNN are both high-quality neutral sources suitable for statements of fact. --Aquillion (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Why the heck are we sourcing economics-related data to CNN? They are a news channel, not an expert source on American economic history. Dimadick (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

    The actual text here is that it was "largely characterized as a failure"; a news channel summarizing how something has been received and covered is a reasonable source for that characterization. Of course, we can use better sources if people can find them, but a mainstream news channel is a reasonable source for a brief sentence characterizing how a politician's policies have been characterized. If we could find better academic sources we could perhaps removed the characterized as, I guess. --Aquillion (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

    I included a few links above to better sources that are presenting nuance, including by CNN and Marketplace. Mostly, I don't see a point in saying "failure" at all, it's a subjective and oversimplified analysis that doesn't belong on wikipedia. We should be featuring facts, not presenting opinion and speculation as fact. Efbrazil (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Efbrazil, you write: "remove opinion pieces and state facts". Of course we state facts, but we also document opinions, and we don't simply "remove opinion pieces", as they are an important part of the "sum total of human knowledge" which Jimbo told us to document. That's the reason Wikipedia exists! Dry facts make for a very boring encyclopedia and would make Wikipedia just like any other encyclopedia. No, we are very different and much more informative. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  Obviously anything Trump does will have plenty of pro and con opinion about it. Should we say everything he does is a success and a failure, then include sourcing to CNN and Fox News for each "side"? Is what I'm trying to get at here is that we are grossly oversimplifying a complicated issue by treating it like the size of his election crowd or the lie that the 2020 election was stolen. The tariffs are not an objective failure, they are a subjective success or failure, depending on your point of view. Efbrazil (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Just commenting to say that I reverted because this BLP should contain as little as possible info about Biden. That is better suited for Presidency of Donald Trump. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, my first preference was just to get rid of the subjective "failure" characterization. When people objected to that, I figured we could back off to at least tempering the "failure" statement by saying they were kept in place by Biden, which clearly indicates that they weren't considered a failure by everybody. If you can think of a way to fix the bias without bringing Biden into it I'm all for that. Efbrazil (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  Or, we just reject your assertion that it is "biased" at all. I'm all for that choice. ValarianB (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  So you think saying it was a "failure" is not oversimplifying and bias? Please review the articles I linked to above. Efbrazil (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• This is just garden-variety WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, as evidenced by the "but what about Biden!?", references to "trump derangement syndrome", and so on. Not sure their future in this topic area is going to be a net positive. ValarianB (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  Righting great wrongs requires that the information being presented is somehow original research. I'm just trying to correct an issue where cherry picked sources were used to present a one sided view of things. When presenting information about this guy it's easy to fall victim to biased reporting, and that's what happened in this case. Efbrazil (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Hyphenation

Markell_West, what's with the hyphenation here, here, and here? Financial disclosure forms, property tax abatement, and consumer goods companies are non-hyphenated compound nouns, not nouns modified by a compound adjective. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Intro doesn't say what subject Trump's degree is in.

It says in the intro, "Trump graduated from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania with a bachelor's degree in 1968." Shouldn't the subject (economics) be stated? Arctic Gazelle (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

No, because it doesn’t relate to his notability. If you erase his media, business, and political career, and all he has is his Econ degree, he wouldn’t be notable enough to be on WP.

Also the reasons for his notability (careers in business, media, and politics), none of those three required a degree in economics. If he was a notable economist or economics professor, then yes it should be included in the lead. But it doesn’t pertain to his notability. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@Arctic Gazelle i disagree. it absolutely should say he graduated with a degree in economics; the subject of his study is at least as relevant as the name of the school or the university he attended. Texaseliz (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I think you are actually *agreeing* with me. Arctic Gazelle (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Don't include the degree. It's not relevant in an already bloated lead. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

No. It's a bit confusing because he really studied business administration. And I would leave the degree in because although no one's degrees establish notability, they are noteworthy aspects of their biographies, especially when they graduate from prestigious schools. TFD (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

If he really studied business administration, as you claim, then the body of the article needs to be changed because it says, "At age 13, he was enrolled at the New York Military Academy, a private boarding school, and in 1964, he enrolled at Fordham University. Two years later, he transferred to the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, graduating in May 1968 with a B.S. in economics. In 2015, Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen threatened Trump's colleges, high school, and the College Board with legal action if they released Trump's academic records." Do you have any hard evidence? Arctic Gazelle (talk) 07:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

No, he did not study business administration. Where did you find that bit of misinformation? On May 20, 1968, Donald John Trump received a "Bachelor of Science in Economics", per the source in Donald Trump#Early life, page 21 of the PDF archived on the Wayback Machine. We need to leave the degree in because Wharton is mainly known for its graduate school, i.e., the MBA program. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Generations of Wharton alums are spinning in their graves at the possiblilty that Trump is among their MBAs. SPECIFICO talk 18:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that something has to relate to someone's notability to be included in the intro. Even if it did, I would argue that for a business man and president of a nation, who is involved in setting the economic policy of the nation, if it's notable that he has a degree, it's notable that the degree is in econcomics. It also shows that he had an interest in economics early on in life. Arctic Gazelle (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It's an undergraduate degree. All Wharton students graduate with a Bachelor of Science in economics, but students choose areas of study called concentrations. Trump graduated from Wharton with a concentration in real estate. It shows that he had an interest in his father's real estate business. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• It's two extra words: "in economics". It would be odd in any biography to read that someone got a bachelor's degree at X university and then have what the actual degree was left out. That sentence is 17 words long, and it's missing the most important 2 ("in economics"). I don't see any particularly good reason to conceal what the actual degree even was. Endwise (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The degree is the Bachelor of Science. This is no different than the biographies of most other presidents. Of course, many of them also graduated from post-graduate schools, Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, etc. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Could you cite other examples of undergraduate majors of businessmen or politicians? What was Harry Truman's undergraduate major? What was Leona Helmsley's undergraduate major? SPECIFICO talk 20:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)