Talk:Donald Trump

Highlighted open discussions

• None

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

01. Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image. (Dec 2016, Jan 2017, Oct 2017, March 2020) (temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait, enforced when an official public-domain portrait was released on 31 October 2017)

02. Show birthplace as "Queens, New York City, U.S." in the infobox. (Nov 2016, Oct 2018, Feb 2021) "New York City" de-linked. (September 2020)

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

04. Superseded by #15

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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

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

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

07. Superseded by #35

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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

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

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

10. Canceled

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

11. Superseded by #17

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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

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

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 14 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". (Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (Nov 2019)

14. Omit mention of Trump's alleged bathmophobia/fear of slopes. (Feb 2017)

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

17. Superseded by #50

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

18. Superseded by #63

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

19. Obsolete

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

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

21. Superseded by #39

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

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

23. Superseded by #52

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

24. Superseded by #30

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35. Superseded by #49

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

36. Superseded by #39

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

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

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

39. Supersedes #21 and #36. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)

40. Include, when discussing Trump's exercise or the lack thereof: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise. (RfC Aug 2019)

41. Omit book authorship (or lack thereof) from the lead section. (RfC Nov 2019)

42. House and Senate outcomes of the impeachment process are separated by a full stop. For example: He was impeached by the House on December 18, 2019, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted of both charges by the Senate on February 5, 2020. (Feb 2020)

43. The rules for edits to the lead are no different from those for edits below the lead. For edits that do not conflict with existing consensus: Prior consensus is NOT required. BOLD edits are allowed, subject to normal BRD process. The mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it. (March 2020)

44. The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results. (RfC May 2020)

45. Superseded by #48

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

46. Use the caption "Official portrait, 2017" for the infobox image. (Aug 2020, Jan 2021)

47. Do not mention Trump's net worth or Forbes ranking (or equivalents from other publications) in the lead, nor in the infobox. (Sep 2020)

48. Supersedes #45. Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic should be mentioned in the lead section. There is no consensus on specific wording, but the status quo is Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. (Oct 2020, RfC Aug 2020)

49. Supersedes #35. Include in lead: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. (Dec 2020)

50. Supersedes #17. The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. (March 2021), amended (July 2021), inclusion of politician (RfC September 2021)

51. Include in the lead that many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as misogynistic. (Aug 2021 and Sep 2021)

52. Supersedes #23. The lead should contain a summary of Trump's actions on immigration, including the Muslim travel ban (cf. item 23), the wall, and the family separation policy. (September 2021)

53. The lead should mention that Trump promotes conspiracy theories. (RfC October 2021)

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (RfC October 2021)

55. Regarding Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, do not wiki-link "Trump's comments" in this manner. (RfC December 2021)

56. Retain the content that Trump never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan but add context. Current wording can be altered or contextualized; no consensus was achieved on alternate wordings. (RfC November 2021) Trump's expressions of doubt regarding the Russian Bounties Program should be included in some capacity, though there there is no consensus on a specific way to characterize these expressed doubts. (RfC March 2022)

57. Do not mention in the lead Gallup polling that states Trump's the only president to never reach 50% approval rating. (RfC January 2022)

58. Use inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations. (RfC May 2022, discussion on what to cite May 2022)

59. Do not label or categorize Trump as a far-right politician. (RfC August 2022)

60. Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023.

61. When a thread is started with a general assertion that the article is biased for or against Trump (i.e., without a specific, policy-based suggestion for a change to the article), it is to be handled as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Add COVID-19 Recession to Paragraph 4 of Article

In paragraph 4 of the article, the part that details President Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic (in the sentence after his appointments of Supreme Court justices), it should include a sentence about how the pandemic led to an economic recession that led to President Trump leaving office with fewer jobs than when his term began. This detail about the economy is crucial, because the recession itself played a big role in Trump losing re-election. Even though this Wikipedia article is a biography of Trump and not an article about the COVID-19 recession, the Wikipedia articles for Presidents Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush discuss the economy. More specifically, the article for President Bush details the United States entering the Great Recession. Therefore, please consider adding a sentence about how the United States suffered a recession during the part of the article where Trump's response to COVID-19 is mentioned.

The sentence can be something like this: "He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored, mocked, or contradicted many recommendations from health officials in his messaging, promoted misinformation about unproven treatments and the availability of testing, and presided over the American response to the COVID-19 recession."

"Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist."

Can we also add misogynistic too? I feel like we should put something in the lead that says Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged and misogynistic. Ak-eater06 (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me it should be..why isn`t already worded that way? 2600:1702:2340:9470:8883:4B26:17AB:9CB3 (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

We already have too much of a Litany of Sins in the lead section. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

What does that mean in English ? What are you really trying to say..that trump is not a misogynist or that it`s not a character flaw ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:8883:4B26:17AB:9CB3 (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

It means that we don't have to list every negative trait about the man in the lead section. Just mathematically, we have only 4-6 paragraphs, and I'm sure there are at least 15 paragraphs of negative material to write about the man. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Do any RS say that "many of his comments and actions have been characterized as mysogonsitc"? The point is he used dog whilstes as a campighn strategy (which is what many RS claim), I am n9ot sure they havcwe said the same about him using mysogony to win votes.Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely. BBC is the top Google result, but there's a litany of RSP-greenlit sources to choose from. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Not a forum
Except that these are two of the most relevant along with being a pathological liar and an unapologetic reactionary 2600:1702:2340:9470:8883:4B26:17AB:9CB3 (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic, WP:NOTFORUM. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't forget stupid. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC) Also funny looking. PackMecEng (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC) And politically incorrect. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC) And incorrectly political. PackMecEng (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC) Boorish and UnAmerican, dammit. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC) cowardly drug addict hold up in a gated " community " ? wonder how is golf game is going..can`t wait for the book 2600:1702:2340:9470:8883:4B26:17AB:9CB3 (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC) We're talking about his commonly characterized comments and actions here, not the man himself, keep it clean? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC) Indubitably my good friend. PackMecEng (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC) Wha-wha-what?!? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC) I'll be your dream, I'll be your wish, I'll be your fantasy? PackMecEng (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC) I think a comma could be everything that you need. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Allegations about Trump's misogyny have been thoroughly documented and have received a comparable level of media attention to those relating to his racism. There is room in the lead for one additional word, and I strongly disagree with 力 that the fact that the information is negative in a lead with other negative information already present somehow means it should not be included. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support I agree..it needs to be in the lead in addition to the allegations of sexual misconduct against minors 2600:1702:2340:9470:ECAE:6827:C0A:C280 (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• I Support the addition of "misogyny" to the lead sentence. I've raised this point before (why does racism get the special call out?). Trump's misogyny/sexism has been widely reported and has been a common and persistent aspect of his life. Trump's treatment of female reporters was often horrible. The section in the article describing this has been "trimmed" and restored, etc, supporting citations removed; I've advocated for a substantive section. A description of this behavior and its consequences, before, during, and after presidency is entirely warranted in this biography. Recall that during one of their debates Clinton called him on it, mentioned as an indication of its importance. It is true that this starts a path down to making a list of sins, but I would oppose such a list. Bdushaw (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose No real sources have been provided for this statements or any sourcing providing to establish that this is WP:DUE weight for the article.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 12:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Misogyny has been a hallmark of Trump's personal behavior and rhetoric over the course of his life, including while president, along with gaslighting women who then question his misogyny. It is well documented both academically and in the news; a simple google search comes up with hundreds of articles documenting this. It is an important addition to the lead sentence. Dr. Van Nostrand (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose adding to the current sentence, could propose adding that information in the lead in a reworked lead. Remember that BLP suggests that we avoid making any section/lead focus on negativity - having a bunch of negative information without context in one sentence in the lead violates that in my opinion. The more negativity is added to one sentence in the lead, the more we risk it being the "litany of sins" - which is not appropriate. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

  WP:BLP says no such thing. Our neutrality standards do say that articles should never focus unduly on negative information, but where sources have reported widely on negative information, we absolutely include it, otherwise the leads of a lot of serial killer pages would look a lot different. Arguing that we shouldn't include negative information because there's already other negative information and we can't have too much of it is the very definition of WP:FALSEBALANCE.

  It seems that there is rough consensus here to include; I'd encourage someone to close this sometime soon so that it doesn't drag on interminably. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  I based it on Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation that quote. The overall presentation of a sentence devoted entirely to this sort of negative information in the lead is similar to criticism sections - there are a plethora of negative (and a plethora of positive things, especially from before his politics) that could be included in the lead. We should not be attempting to "hang" a ton of negative words in the lead just because they can be reliably sourced. That's not false balance - it's true balance. His racism is much more prevalent in reliable sources - and elevating misogyny to be at the same level is inappropriate because there's maybe 5-10 times more reliable sources that discuss his racist comments/actions than his misogynistic ones. Which is exactly why I said I may support it being added elsewhere - may - if it can be done in such a way to not make it similar in weight to the racist comments, which have received much more attention in reliable sources than has this. Alternatively, I see no reason that the "race" and "sex" has to be called out - why can we not just change the wording altogether to be "discriminatory", as I feel that'd be supported and would encompass not only racial/gender discrimination but also sexual orientation (which can be reliably sourced) and all of his other hateful comments? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Racist or Prejudice?

When I think of racism, it is a stronger form of prejudice where someone considers one race superior to another. Prejudice (pre-judgement) is "An unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason. Any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable. Unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding an ethnic, racial, social, or religious group." Growing up, my generation was taught a very firm distinction between the two terms. I wholeheartedly, undoubtedly think Trump pre judges people based on race, religion, sex, gender, etc. He'll kick you out of a country but he wouldn't take it to the extremes. He's a fast talker from the 50's-80's and that is simply not the same thing.Jawz101 (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Please read wp:or and wp:soap.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

In my generation and growing up in JIM CROW south..I was taught differently..it`s essentially the same thing..it is to me anyway 2600:1702:2340:9470:ECAE:6827:C0A:C280 (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Trump website

The official Trump post-presidential website is 45office.com. Why is it not listed? Ajlipp (talk) 06:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

https://www.45office.com Ajlipp (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Or is it https://www.donaldjtrump.com/?Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

In the same way that Obama has two sites: https://barackobama.com ("The Office of Barack and Michelle Obama") and https://obama.org (Obama Foundation), Trump also has two.

https://45office.com is "The Office of Donald J. Trump" and https://donaldjtrump.com is "Save America", a site for fundraising for Save America JFC, a joint fundraising committee of Save America and Make America Great Again PAC. Its legal disclaimer says it is "not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee." The site also forwards to a store for Trump merchandise, and forwards to https://45office.com via the "contact" link. Both sites catalog Trump's recent official statements. Ajlipp (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I changed the link to 45office. The other one, donaldjtrump, is just a link to the for-profit GOP fundraiser WinRed. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

https://45office.com is his "official" site, but this week he started using https://donaldjtrump.com/desk as his replacement Twitter-type page as well. Ajlipp (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

There’s a link to it listed under "External links." The "desk" button was added to the shop/fundraising website on May 4, 2021. It wasn’t there when the Wayback Machine crawled the website at 17:47, it was there when the website was crawled at 20:51 (I don’t know whether they’re using UTC or another time zone). It’s a blog (think WordPress) trying to copy the look of Twitter. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds fair. We don't list the Twitter accounts (or their equivalents) of Obama, GWB, Bill Clinton, or Carter in the "personal details" section of their pages either. Ajlipp (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Why was Trump's official website switched to https://donaldjtrump.com? That site states "Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee." It's written on literally every page. It is *not* Trump's official website, and could not be more direct about that fact. It is paid for, controlled by, and exists for the sole financial benefit of the Save America joint fundraising committee.

Trump's only official website is https://www.45office.com. That Save America's site also happens to contain Trump's blog doesn't change that. Please switch Trump's official website back to https://trump45office.com Ajlipp (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

24-hr BRD violation

@Srodgers1701: Please note that this article is under active arbitration remedies. Your edit was reverted. IAW the 24-hr BRD cycle, you shouldn't have reinstated it without discussing it on the talk page first. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The article should mention operation Warp Speed

I read in this article of USA Today, ("Biden blazed past his vaccine target for the first 100 days. Does the Trump administration deserve credit too?"), which is a reliable source, that Operation Warp Speed played a crucial role in the success of the american vaccination campaign. In order to ensure the neutrality of this wikipedia page, one should mention it, since it's an argument often used to defend Trump's actions and it is supported by reliable sources.

The issue here, I guess, is that Trump did more than probably any other single person on Earth to undermine efforts to stop the spread of coronavirus, so the fact that, by accident, one thing he did was not shitty, is not widely regarded as significant in context. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry but that's an opinion and Wikipedia is not made to express one opinion in particular but all the ones that are supported by facts. This article already gives many elements that could be use to criticize Trump's gestion of the crisis, I just ask that we add a contradictory element supported by a reliable source. Since vaccines are probably the things that will end the pandemic, the billions of dollars that were given by the federal governement to fund research on it are relevant in context. Dimitrius99 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

"Given by the federal government". Not by Trump.Pipsally (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Trump was a part of the federal government and the reliable source I proposed explicitely gives credit to his administration.Dimitrius99 (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a relevant scholarly report given the context: "Donald Trump and vaccination: The effect of political identity, conspiracist ideation and presidential tweets on vaccine hesitancy." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

This article was published in May 2020, it isn't relevant to talk about the current vaccination campaign. Dimitrius99 (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

What does the source say, does he say he deserves more credit, or just ask the question should he get it (and then concludes no, or yes)?Slatersteven (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Here are some excerpts : "His careful wording – which casts the sprint to vaccinate as a collective effort –underscores a months-long debate over who deserves credit, something health experts say belongs to both administrations: Trump for aggressively developing a vaccine and Biden for rolling it out", "While Trump made a high-stakes gamble that led to record-breaking vaccine development before Inauguration Day, the Biden administration formalized a national strategy that helped the nation's patchwork of health systems execute a vaccination rate of more than 3 million shots a day","Julie Morita, executive vice president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and a former Biden transition adviser, said that while the Trump administration was successful in vaccine development, Biden's focus on providing states funding and resources to actually coordinate and deliver vaccines has been crucial to the rollout", the article is balanced but underscores the importance of Trump's administration decisions.Dimitrius99 (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem I see with this article can be summed up in one question : here are two elements on Trump's gestion of the crisis, one could be found in the article, the other could't : -Trump said in April 2020 that vaccine was months away while some experts said one should wait at least 12 months (and they were wrong). -Trump's administration launched an iniative to manufacture vaccines at fast at possible by giving billions of dollars to research teams. What is the most important of these two elements ? The neutrality of Wikipedia will be judged by its ability to write balanced articles on controversial figures : there's a link to Operation Warp Speed's Wikipedia page in the "Template : Donald Trump series", as a part of governement response to the pandemic, while it isn't even mentionned once in the body of the article or in the introduction.Dimitrius99 (talk) 08:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Then I think we can add something about his vaccine response. Something like "Trump was given credit for his vaccine development plan, and the speed with which they were developed. However...".Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The wording is great, it is balanced and it is coherent with the reliable source. I would completely support something like this. Dimitrius99 (talk) 09:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Cherry-picked quotes from one article that doesn’t even mention that the vaccine approved first (BioNTech/Pfizer's) was developed with German government funding. Followed by Warp Drive malfunction: crashlanding of 'Operation Warp Speed'. According to Operation Warp Speed, Trump’s involvement was the official announcement on May 15, 2020. BTW, the Trump administration quietly took around $10 billion from a fund meant to help hospitals and health care providers affected by Covid-19 and used the money to bankroll Operation Warp Speed contracts. Summing up: name pilfered from Star Trek, funds pilfered from money provided by Congress for pandemic-related expenses like hospital staffing and staff's personal protective equipment, treatment of uninsured COVID-19 patients, and vaccine distribution. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

You are trying to make a proof of your point, but that's original research and "No original research" is one of the core content policies of Wikipedia. USA Today is ranked first by circulation on the list of newspapers in the United States, and it is a reliable source, so if an article consider that Trump's administration policies were crucial in the success in the american vaccination campaign, it should me mentionned in Wikipedia. If you want to refute this idea, you can use other secondary sources but a long article of one of the main american newpapers deserves to be mentionned. Your Politico article could perfectly be mentionned after the "However"Dimitrius99 (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Original research? Bloomberg, Politico, and Stat are reliable secondary sources. Another quote from USA Today: Less than a month in office, Biden moved to purchase 200 million additional Pfizer and Moderna doses to cover 300 million adults. The president also purchased an additional 100 million doses from Johnson & Johnson and helped cement a deal between the vaccine maker and its rival Merck to help make the newly approved vaccine. Trump officials have pointed out the alliance was the result of conversations between the two pharmaceutical companies before Biden took office, but Merck CEO Ken Frazier credited the Biden administration with expanding discussions and offering "financial support that allowed us to then think about converting our factories to make this stuff," he told The Washington Post. Among the FDA-authorized vaccines, only Pfizer did not take federal dollars to fund research and development. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

We may have misunderstood each other, what I am saying is that there's a long article of a reliable source that is dealing with Operation Warp Speed, in it some excerpts give credit to Trump's administration, while others criticize it. What I am asking for is that this article is used as a reference in this Wikipedia page in a paragraph that deals with Trump's relation to Operation Warp Speed. I'm not attached to a particular phrasing, the one proposed in the beginning of this conversation was just a first idea. What I consider to be original content would be to refuse to even quote this article because other sources contradict it in a subjective subject( I mean the appreciation of one's political decisions can never be purely objective), and thus make a choice among several valid options using its own judgment. I said earlier that Politico was also a reliable source so I argue that one should quote both of them, but at least mentionning Warp Speed somewhere in the article. Dimitrius99 (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

You do not actually seem to understand what "original research" means in the context of the Wikipedia, first off. Second, the USA Today source you're leaning on for all of this is not as ironclad in the "Trump deserves credit" camp as you think it is. Did you, perhaps, not read all of it? Much of the pro-Trump bits are cited to Paul Mango, a partisan member of the previous administration. The article also notes Trump's vaccine hesitancy and denials hampered any potential benefits the Warp Speed program may have initially had. ValarianB (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at Talk:Joe Biden re category

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Joe Biden related to the category Category:Candidates in the 2020 United States presidential election that would also affect this page. The discussion can be found here. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead too long

The introduction section is wayy too long. I don't think I have ever seen another wikipedia page that has more than 2 paragraphs before hitting the contents box. Is this a thing that should be fixed? It just doesn't look right to me. 2001:569:BE3B:C700:B88D:C732:531C:123E (talk) 07:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

It is indeed quite long, but that's not exceptional given the amount of information this article covers. Wikipedia has a rather loose guideline on lead length. The ideal number of paragraphs for a long, complex article is 3-4, but I don't think the 5 shortish ones here is so out of line that it needs an urgent 'fix' – the current length is just about acceptable. Leads naturally tend to end up longer because of WP:RECENTISM, particularly with controversial topics. This one has been discussed extensively as there are different views on what should and shouldn't be included. I expect it'll be easier to make decisions about what to cut as time passes and the most important parts of Trump's legacy become clearer (and more sources are written). If you have any concrete suggestions for improvement though, fire away. Jr8825 • Talk 18:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

From the Desk of Donald J. Trump

Trump's new official website is called From the Desk of Donald J. Trump 46.212.103.44 (talk) 09:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

See how canceled he is? He only has access to eight TV networks and a website to get his message out. Guy (help! - typo?) 06:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 06:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

And that message is "same old same old," except he now has to wait for office hours to get his messages posted by the content managers. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

It’s not a new official website, it’s a blog (think WordPress) on the shop/fundraising website. They added the "desk" button to the shop’s website on May 4, 2021. It wasn’t there when the Wayback Machine crawled the website at 17:47, May 4, 2021. It was there when the Wayback Machine next crawled it at 20:51 (I don’t know whether the archive uses UTC or another time zone). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we need an RS for what his official website is.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Is your Google malfunctioning? Here ya go. Jackson, David (May 4, 2021). "Trump launches 'From the desk of Donald J. Trump' as potential Facebook ban looms". USA TODAY. and Murphy, Tim (May 4, 2021). "Donald Trump Has a New Website But It's Bad: Here is the latest media personality to turn to blogging". Mother Jones., etc. etc. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

No, I just wanted somethign that says it is "his official website", not that it is one he operates (he has a few).Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I've gone ahead and updated the article. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

No, his official website is https://www.donaldjtrump.com/ In the infobox we should link to his home page, not a subpage like https://www.donaldjtrump.com/desk or https://www.donaldjtrump.com/news - I've moved his blog to External links'. starship.paint (exalt) 03:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

You didn't restore his official taxpayer-funded website as the former president which is "www.45office.com." "www.donaldjtrump.com" is a shop/fundraising site, now with a blog for promulgating Trump's—uh—thoughts. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

https://donaldjtrump.com is *not* Trump's official website. That site states "Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee." Those words are written on literally *every* page. The site could not be more direct about the fact that it is not Trump's site. It is paid for, controlled by, and exists for the sole financial benefit of the Save America joint fundraising committee. That it also happens to contain Trump's blog doesn't change that.

Trump's only official website is https://www.45office.com. Please switch it back. Ajlipp (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Ajlipp and Space4Time3Continuum2x: - acknowledged, changed, thank you, and sorry for my error. starship.paint (exalt) 10:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Deaths "as a consequence" of the Capitol storming

Pipsally, you [1] reinstated the sentence: Five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died as a consequence of the riot. describing it as sourced content. You appear to be unaware that the three sources you restored [2][3][4] are outdated, all of them being written in January, with the latest update being in February. You removed an April source (WTOP / AP) I provided from which states that out of the five deaths, the D.C. medical examiner found that three (Brian Sicknick, Kevin Greeson, Benjamin Philips) were natural deaths (stroke, hypertensive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease) and one (Roseanne Boyland) was an accidental death (amphetamine overdose). Other sources have also reported this (NBC on Sicknick / USA Today on Sicknick / CNBC on the others / Forbes on the others) Additionally note that according to the police incident report, Greeson died before rioters entered the Capitol [5], and according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, there is no evidence that Philips participated in the storming [6]. In light of this new information, we cannot continue to maintain that Five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died as a consequence of the riot. starship.paint (exalt) 03:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this, but I'll note that people are still insisting on the "5" number on the talk page of 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. As that can be considered a "sub article" of this, I think per summary guidelines the issue should be rectified there before it is changed here. I agree that the death count should not be 5, but there are many editors who are attempting to keep it as high as possible to prove their beliefs regarding the political views at play. Unfortunately, this group consists of editors who are well respected and are not getting called out for relying on old sources for their beliefs - thus the number hasn't yet been changed there. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Berchanhimez - clearly there were 5 deaths that sources have associated with the riot plus protests (which is true, the people did attend the protests/riot). That does not mean that all the deaths were a consequence. I feel that the storming article should discuss these 5 deaths, to make clear the manner, but this isn’t exactly a sub-article of the storming. They may be some nuance here, who knows if the stress of the riot contributed to Sicknick’s stroke? But this article on Trump isn’t the place for such nuance. starship.paint (exalt) 05:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The main article has more nuanced wording, which I've followed in changing "as a consequence" to "There were many casualties, and five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died before, during, or after the riot." Note that No less than 138 officers (73 Capitol Police and 65 Metropolitan Police) were injured, of whom at least 15 were hospitalized, some with severe injuries. Even if Sicknick's stroke was entirely "natural", that would make him a Casualty (person)#Non-battle casualty . . . dave souza, talk 06:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that the wording "as a consequence" implies that deaths were directly caused by the riot. I agree with starship.paint that they've been associated - but that does not mean that they were "as a consequence of". I think the current text saying There were many casualties, and five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died before, during, or after the riot is good. The only improvement would be to replace casualties with injuries - seems that it's being used to say injuries primarily and that injuries is more straightforward. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

As that article also notes, Two police officers who responded to the attack died by suicide in the following days. Some members of Congress and press reports have included these deaths in the casualty count, for a total of seven deaths. . . dave souza, talk 06:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Should the casualties caused by heart disease and drug intoxication even be included in the article? Sure, you could argue that it exacerbated symptoms, but so could any stressful, high-energy event. Though at the same time, maybe it should stay for being so widely talked about in relation to the riots, regardless of how much it actually matters. Met84ak (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure this has a place here. It is (I would argue) that a major part of his life.Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Post-presidency section should be updated to include Trump targetting Liz Cheney

Post-presidency should be updated to chronicle Trump's targeting of Liz Cheney and how he used his influence to kick her out of her leadership role for her criticism of him. Here are some sources:

• BarneyHank (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree..considering the length of this article..all the details regarding his life personal life..business dealings..political career etc as well..this tiny little blurb about where he is and what he is doing is just plain weird, especially that he seems to be moving back into some type of public life although it`s obvious it will be eventually as he is an ex president..it`s just a matter of time..whatever he`s doing at Mar-Largo needs to be in as well as any relation he seems to be cultivating with the Republican party 2600:1702:2340:9470:B087:E7A3:77E3:CDCA (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Abraham accords

The peace deals between Israël and several arabic countries aren't mentionned anywhere in the article while the Abraham Accords were signed in the White House and they are mentionned in the introduction of the article dedicated to Trump's foreign policy. Dimitrius99 (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The so-called Abraham Accords were pomp & circumstance and little substance...agreements signed between nations that were not even hostile at the time. The event happened, and is worth a mention in the former guy's foreign policy article, but there is no historical impact of them that is relevant enough to the man's biographical article here. ValarianB (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

"there is no historical impact of them that is relevant enough to the man's biographical article here". Let me quote some reliable sources

CNN : "President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday joined the foreign ministers of the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain at the White House to mark historic normalization agreements between Israel and the two Arab countries.", "Netanyahu described the day as a "pivot of history, a new dawn of peace."

NBC : "WASHINGTON — Israel signed deals to normalize ties with the Gulf states of the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain on Tuesday that were brokered by President Donald Trump in what is described as a diplomatic breakthrough."

USA Today : "WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump heralded a pair of historic agreements formalizing diplomatic relations between Israel and two Gulf Arab nations in a ceremony Tuesday on the White House South Lawn."

MSNBC "Netanyahu says agreement 'can end the Arab-Israeli conflict once and for all'"

Times of Israël : "These phrases may sound pompous, but there is some truth to them. The agreements signed Tuesday in Washington are a genuine breakthrough in Israel’s 72-year struggle to become an accepted member of the region in which it is located. Until today, many Israelis felt their country belonged more to Europe than to the Middle East. Now they may have cause to rethink. "

I completely disagree with you when you say that there isn't any historical impact. First of all, one could argue that these agreements is the beginning of the end for the two states solution since arabic states accepted to collaborate with Israël without asking for specific actions regarding the Israelo-Palestinian conflict. Secondly since multiples reliable sources (if not all) use words like breakthrough, historical agreement, your personnal geopolitical opinion isn't enough for refusing to mention this event. Finally this event is mentionned in the introduction of other language versions of this article, like in the French or the Italian ones.--Dimitrius99 (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

We are not a newspaper, and we do not write like a newspaper. Despite their flowery language, the signing of documents does not in and of itself demonstrate "historical impact". What actual impact has it had? What one could argue like WP:OR. This isn't personal geopolitical opinion. There is much debate out there about how significant these really are. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I was just refuting ValarianB argument : he was saying that these facts shouldn't even be mentioned here because they did not have any historical impact and I proved that many reliable sources say the contrary. Since it's an event that received great attention from the international press, I demand that it is mentioned somewhere in the article. Something like this in the article "On August 13, 2020, President Donald Trump published on Twitter a joint statement between Israel, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States where the first ones announced their decision to normalize their relations. The statement marked the first public normalization of relations between an Arab country and Israel since that of Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994. On the aftermath of this announcement, Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan and Oman also agreed to normalize their relations with Israël. The formal agreements between Israël and the United Arab Emirates and Israel and Bahrain was signed at the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C on 15 September 2020" and add in the introduction after the negociation with North Korea "his administration supervised the peace agreement between Israël annd the United Arab Emirates". English is not my first language so one may change the wording. Dimitrius99 (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

You, whose 27 of 30 lifetime edits have been to this page pumping up Donald J. Trump's endeavors, have not refuted a thing. You found contemporary news accounts of the event that do not speak to their importance or impact on Trump personally. It is suitable to mention in the presidency article. Not here. ValarianB (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The foreign policy section of this article covers things that are called "significant" or "historical" much less often than these are by reliable sources. I did an analysis with links in one of the previous discussions on this issue, but I am not sure exactly where that went. My analysis showed that these agreements are considered the "most significant" foreign policy achievement of his time in office, and it's actually called as much (with the words "most significant" used directly) by a decent number of reliable sources. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

As I said a month ago, now at Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_135#Trump's_Middle_Eastern_brokering, "a face-saving nothingburger", symbolic gesture accomplished nothing of substance. Zaathras (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

You have to be honest : whatever the event, one may find a source saying that it is not important at all. You may be a geopolitical genius and find the right article that expresses the opinion of future historians, but the purpose of Wikipedia is not to find the "true" significance of these events, it is to express the weighted opinions found on all reliable sources.--Dimitrius99 (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Not great timing to start up a thread about peace breaking out in the middle east. This is just why I said the last time this was raised we need to wait and see if this has any real lasting impact rather than just being a photo op.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Each time an event happens in the world we don't wait ten years to see the consequences before mentioning it in Wikipedia. As I said I am not even in favor of saying that Abraham accords are historic, I just consider that due to the numerous reactions they raised one should mention their existence somewhere in the article.--Dimitrius99 (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Nor do we include every international treaty. This is an article about Trump, not his presidency.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, by necessity, a biography of him will cover aspects of his time as a president. I note below 9 sources directly linked that lend credence to the DUE weight in RS argument for including this (at least including this over at least 3 things covered in that section here now). There are more out there - I will start linking more, and more, when I have time. Either the section needs to be gutted with the things less due than this removed, or this needs to be added based on the amount of weight it's given in reliable sources. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

We have a separate article on his presidency. And everything the president does gets coverage, even going golfing.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Sources from past discussions

I've started going through and accumulating RS that lend to the due weight of this in this article (either by saying it's a significant achievement or notable or something similar) - at least more so than the current foreign policy things in this article. Additions to this list would be appreciated. I'm sure there's many more. There's a clear consensus that, regardless of their historical significance, they are the most significant positive achievement by him in office. We must, for due weight, present these in this article if we are going to present other things that are much less due, such as the Saudi arms agreement (less due than this), troop changes (aside from the withdrawal, which is more due than this), NATO comments (didn't receive near as much praise/criticism in RS as this), and Israel related comments aside from the condemnation for the Golan Heights debacle (again, less due than this). I get that people are trying not to add, then let's consider removing some of those less due things. Right now, the section focuses primarily on things that garnered criticism or appear negative (such as "reversing his pre-election position"), and it is due weight for this to be added as well given the amount of significance it is given by RS. Note that in this sort of instance, we are not supposed to attempt to determine significance on our own - we are to treat it how RS treat it - and these sources (among more out there) show clearly that it is considered more significant than some of the things in the article right now by RS. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Praised by Biden
• Lands "victory"
• First unambiguous success
• Diplomatic "achievement"
• "deserves credit"
• Five reasons why they "matter"
• "may prove to be the most significant foreign policy achievement of his first term"
• Pelosi: "an important day"
• "groundbreaking"

I completely agree with you, if this fact is not deemed to be important enough to be mentioned, then one should probably delete three quarters of this article.Dimitrius99 (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

If there is content you feel should be removed, please specify which and why. SPECIFICO talk 08:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

It was essentially a figure of speech since I foremost argue that one should mention Abraham Accords.Dimitrius99 (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I specified three things that are less due than this based on the amount of significance RS attribute to this (and the amount of coverage as a whole, which there's a ton of), and you have yet to respond. Please see my header to this section above the list of sources to see what I would like replaced with a balanced view of these accords - i.e. including them, as well as including the criticism from some sources as "useless" or "for show". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

By all means, you are free to pursue whatever other edits of content you feel is UNDUE. That does not change the fact that this thread is pointless, a waste of time, redundant etc. I see someone has reversed my close. I remain uninvolved in this discussion, except to reaffirm my close and express my disappointment that anyone would feel this thread -- and its diffuse extension -- is a valuable use of editor time. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I would just like to quote the first sentence of the article "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" : "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. " If one considers that Abraham accords are not worth mentioning, they will have to prove that their importance is not supported by any reliable source, while Berchanhimez already gave 9 counterexamples amongst some of the most popular newspapers of the USA.Dimitrius99 (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

None of which apply personally to Trump the man, they apply to Trump the president. Some people here need a reminder that these are separate topics. ValarianB (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks to me like a convulated distinction that could be used to arbitrarily reject basically any event happening during his presidency if one doesn't want it to be mentioned. Could you thus give me a precise criterion that could help us find the line between what should be mentioned here and what shoudn't ? Dimitrius99 (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I undid the closure of this. Discussion was actively ongoing, and closing an actively ongoing discussion is inappropriate. Trump the man has an article here which has a section about "foreign policy" as Trump the president. I said above that these sources alone (let alone the others out there, I can keep adding if you want) prove that this topic is more due for this article than at least 3 other things that are covered in that section right now. Why are the three negative things being covered but not something more due based on coverage in reliable sources? That's a violation of NPOV and the due weight policy. Part of the reason is because people quickly shut down any discussion of this after sources are provided that do not agree with their desired conclusion/outcome. I note that nobody has yet to say why the sources provided do not prove this is more due weight for this article than the other things in the section right now - that's not a proper end to a discussion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

You have provided nothing that is noteworthy or relevant to Trump's biography. Yes, there is a short section regarding foreign policy here, it provides a brief summary of events, which can than be expanded upon at the sub-article. Inexperienced editors frequently get a wrong notion in their heads that "IF NOT IN MAIN ARTICLE THEN IT MUST BE CENSORSHIP!", but, we have child and parent article relationships so the parent does not get bloated and overly-long, it has nothing to do with hiding or burying information. ValarianB (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Summary style says we should summarize the most notable or due aspects of the child article. I went into three topics in my intro to this section that are less due for this article based on the amount of reliable sources that give coverage and give credence to the significance of this. Those three topics should be removed too then, if this one isn't added. We don't just randomly pick and choose what to include in the "brief summary" - we base it on due weight in reliable sources. Again, I'm not saying add this and do nothing - I'm saying replace some of the less due aspects of that section with this. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Specific proposal

I propose adding the following specific text to replace the current part of this section about Saudi Arabia. Per summary style, we should look at the child article and due weight in reliable sources to determine what is important enough to cover in this summary here. The editors at that article have determined that there is more weight given to the Abraham Accords, such that it is mentioned in the lead of that article, while Saudi Arabia isn't even mentioned but in two paragraphs. As a comparison, the section that article has on the Abraham Accords is almost twice as long.

• Text to be added in place: Trump and his staff brokered a normalization of relations agreement between Israel and the UAE, which was then followed by further agreements with Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. While these have been called the most significant foreign policy accomplishment of his administration, many scholars feel he overstated the significance of the agreements and that they are unlikely to produce lasting impact on peace in the region.

Sources for this text would be the following: as well as some of the links I included in the section above. People who think this should not be included are asked to please express how not including this, while including something much less covered in reliable sources (the Saudi Arabia sentences), is compliant with WP:DUE and WP:SS. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I support your proposal, it is balanced, it is sourced and it replaces a paragraph of less importance comparing the two aspects in the child article.--Dimitrius99 (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose "Many scholars feel he overstated the significance of the agreements and that they are unlikely to produce lasting impact on peace in the region", says it all, it is too early to say if this will be HIS lasting legacy or even a last legacy of his presidency. It is just puffery.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's be honest one second : Donald Trump met with Kim Jung Un three times, it was considered historic at that times but it led to all but nothing. Trump criticized Nato several times but it led to all but nothing. Would you support erasing these two events from this article ? One has to be coherent, this discussion has to lead to something because it is clear that if Abraham accords are'nt worth mentioning, these two events aren't either. So what are you proposing to solve this contradiction ?Dimitrius99 (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

No. The reason why the North Korea shtick belongs here is precisely because the former guy made it so intensely personal ....the insult-trading, the massive super-hype leading up to it, and the embarrassing letdown at the end. His NK foreign policy is notable specifically because of the spectacular failure. See Inside the Collapse of Trump’s Korea Policy for a primer. ValarianB (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Right?, this was very personal, Personal meetings, glad-handing. This was Trump using his personality (not the state department) to court a leader, not a nation.Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose For reasons outlined earlier. Notable for the presidency, not the man. ValarianB (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I am still asking for elements allowing us to clearly draw the line between Trump the president and Trump the man. There are several sentences where it is not Trump but his administration which are mentioned in the article, for instance "The Trump administration separated more than 5,400 children of migrant families from their parents at the U.S.–Mexico border while attempting to enter the U.S, a sharp increase in the number of family separations at the border starting from the summer of 2017." Since this policy was announced not by Trump but by Jeff Sessions, one may argue that it concerns Trump the president and not Trump the man. But I would be glad if you give me precise definition of Trump the man. --Dimitrius99 (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

What you're asking for isn't relevant. We as editors make the distinction as we evaluate the sources for a given topic. It's really time for you to move on from this...approx 95% of your edits are specifically Trump-related, and this hyper-focus is not going to make for a long editing career here. ValarianB (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

If you really looked at my profile you would have understand that I'm french and that I have mainly written in my first language on very different subjects for years. It just happened that looking at Trump's english page few days ago and comparing it to the french one, I found the first very biaised and thought that neutrality should be ensured everywhere, so yes for once have written in the english Wikipedia for this specific topic. I was absolutely shocked by the wall of partisanship I found, with people openly expressing their opinion on Trump as if it was an argument and not looking for any concensus. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere with people filibustering any attempt to make articles like this one just a little bit less biaised.Dimitrius99 (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Two wrongs do not make a right if there is content that is objected to suggest its removal in another thread.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I would gladly do that if one gives me precise definitions of Trump the man and Trump the president, so I could propose some modications that are coherent with your vision. This article is already too long so it could be eventually a good thing.Dimitrius99 (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Then start a thread about that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Refs

References

University name in infobox, part three

Trump's infobox needs to say University of Pennsylvania. This is how all former presidents'undergraduate degrees are handled. Barack Obama is listed as having graduated from Columbia University, not Columbia College. For George W. Bush, Yale University is listed, not Yale College. Same for Bill Clinton, who graduated from Georgetown College, but Georgetown University is what's listed. So why is Trump the only president who has a named graduate program within a university listed as his undergraduate alma mater?

I believe a reason could be to deceive the public, because saying one graduated from "Wharton" heavily implies earning an MBA. Whether that is the reason or not, Wikipedia is continuing to perpetuate that deception by treating Trump's page differently from all other former U.S. presidents.

There is no public figure of Trump's significance with only a bachelor's degree, but who has the Wharton School listed as their alma mater. There is no other president whose undergraduate alma mater is listed as a named graduate school, rather than the University.

In a previous discussion about this, as an example, user Hipocrite wrote that all presidents who graduated from Harvard College, Harvard Law School or Harvard Buisness School, *all* are listed as Harvard University (John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, John F. Kennedy, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama).

User Hipocrite also noted that some public figures with MBAs have Wharton in their infobox. But what was never discussed was that I can find *no* other significant public figure that has Wharton, nor any other named graduate program (be it business, law or otherwise) listed as their *undergraduate* alma mater. Trump is the only one I could find.

For Wharton to remain in Trump's infobox, you should be able to find many other public figures of Trump's stature with a named graduate program listed as their undergraduate alma mater. But you can't, because they don't exist.

Trump's needs to revert back to University of Pennsylvania, because standards need to be applied objectively. Ajlipp (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

But Trump did graduate from the Wharton School of Finance --Distelfinck (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

That would be fine if that's how other presidents were listed, but it's not. Obama graduated from Columbia College, George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush graduated from Yale College, Bill Clinton graduated from Georgetown College, and yet *none* of their infoboxes say the names of those colleges. Their infoboxes say Columbia University, Yale University, and Georgetown University, respectively. The undergraduate alma mater is always listed as the name of the university. Trump doesn't get to be an exception. Ajlipp (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Ajlipp The consensus at the Clinton, Bush and Obama articles does not have to apply to here. A local consenus at one article should not dictate a local consenus at another article. There is no policy that all related articles on Wikipedia must be formatted in sync. Mgasparin (talk) 06:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Of course related articles should be formatted similarly. It would be malpractice to deliberately mis-format Trump's infobox, to the exception of all others, for the purpose of misleading readers by heavily implying Trump earned a graduate degree that he never received.

Plenty of public figures have received undergraduate degrees from Wharton, and their infoboxes all say "University of Pennsylvania", and so should Trump's. Ajlipp (talk) 06:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)