Talk:Donald Trump

Open RfCs and surveys

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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (RfC October 2021) Amended after re-election: After his first term, scholars and historians ranked Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history. (November 2024)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias, optionally using its shortcut, WP:TRUMPRCB.
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)

Adding criticized as racist to lead

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.

---

Since when I proposed it 2 weeks ago it kinda died down without a conclusion, I'm reproposing it:

Add "Many of his comments have been criticized as racist, which he has denied." after "His election and policies have sparked numerous protests." in the lead. (if you would support with a rewording/prefer another wording can also indicate that)

Survey: Adding criticized as racist to lead

• Support per my comments two weeks ago. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose not an important enough aspect of Trump for the lead. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support adding something along the lines proposed, expanded to include the popular appeal of such statements. Countless reliable sources report that Trump's racist statements are indeed "an important enough aspect", so (unsourced) WP:fringe theories like that expressed above by User:Emir of Wikipedia can be ignored, in line with policy. zzz (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not a fringe theory. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. with a footnote saying Do not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section. You show these countless reliable sources saying that his "racist statements" are the most important point about him. It is OR and/or fringe theory to make such a claim, not the one I made which is about the absence of sources. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a selection of sources in the relevant section of the article. I have yet to see a reliable source backing up your theory. zzz (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Those sources are appropriate for that section, they don't state that him being criticized as racist are amongst his important aspects. What o you mean you have yet to see a reliable source backing up my theory? I am not presenting a theory just following the reliable sources. No reliable source or even an unreliable source has been presented stating that Trump being criticized as racist is amongst the most important aspect to his notability. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you look again at the sources in the article (even just reading the titles of the sources will suffice). And I repeat,I have yet to see any sources backing up your fringe theory that Trump's racist statements are "not an important enough aspect". (According to research, they are why he got elected...) zzz (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I have looked at the titles of the sources. What I am stating is not a fringe theory, but it is apparent as no source is stating the opposite. Sources don't state the omission but rather the inclusion of something, and therefore the omission of it proves that it is the the prevailing or mainstream view not fringe theory. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

"The past year of research has made it very clear: Trump won because of racial resentment. Another study produces the same findings we’ve seen over and over again." "... proves that it is the the prevailing or mainstream view ..." - that is your stated opinion, obviously. It is the opposite of what reliable sources state, however. zzz (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I would take Vox as a source with a grain of salt there. PackMecEng (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, they are a reliable source, though. That's what articles are based on. You don't have any backing up your opinion. zzz (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

That Vox article is from their Identities section... aka a blog. Please read WP:RS to understand how reliable sources are determined. Also yes generally Vox is a RS, that does NOT mean they are reliable for everything. PackMecEng (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem, try any of the other sources then. This article can continue to follow the Fox News line, or it can follow reliable sources, which will tell you that Trump's racist statements are "an important aspect", as you are well aware. And no sources contradict that, as you are equally well aware. zzz (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, zzz? Somebody's simple and perfectly defensible opinion becomes a "fringe theory" which "can be ignored"? Let's respect each other and just discuss, OK? --MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion goes like this (please correct me if I'm wrong): There's Fox News and affiliates, which would agree it's just fake news from the "Main Stream Media", and then there's the MSM, otherwise known as Reliable Sources, which undeniably do find the racist statements to be an extremely "important aspect". I can't see how this article's lead section can just ignore them. zzz (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

AFAIK Fox is still considered RS. We have WP:DAILYMAIL, but WP:FOXNEWS is redlinked. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

LOL. Yes, but isn't it about time that gets fixed? They are a GOP/Putin advocacy group, Shep Smith being the one exception. Maybe that's why Fox News is not classified as news, but is part of Fox Entertainment Group. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Could be, and I would probably support "fixing" it, but this is not the place as you know. Fox is probably the biggest player on the right, and the magnitude of that certain shitstorm is probably why nobody cares to raise this. (Three probablys in two sentences is probably excessive.) ―Mandruss ☎ 21:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Undue and not a major aspect of his life. PackMecEng (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose After years of discussion we recently added this to the article, where it occupies a subsection of three paragraphs. Considering how much more there is to say about him in this very full BLP, that one small section does not merit inclusion in the lede. That's based on how we normally choose what goes into the lede, and quite aside from the inflammatory nature of this kind of accusation, but that's also a consideration. --MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Too contentious for lead--Nonztp (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED (yet).- MrX 🖋 23:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

  I meant to say that possibly contentious and arguable materials best fit the body rather than the lead--Nonztp (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

But why? Seriously, not a rhetorical question. Sure, it'll be contentious but we should aim for the most NPOV lead, not the least contentious one. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support a one sentence mention in the lead. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Every president has been accused of being a racist. Every president has been accused of being incompetent. Every president has been accused of being corrupt, an agent of a foreign power, and just plain unpresidential. Really, just saying he is President means he has been accused of all those things and it's simply too contentious to include it here as some sort of overall summary. --DHeyward (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

  No objective observer would call the Trump presidency "Washington business as usual"—including Trump and his supporters. Yes, every president has had some of those things said about him, but not nearly to this degree. If anybody ever said Obama was not presidential (I don't recall seeing that), they meant he was not white, and nobody took them seriously including Republican politicians. If anybody ever said Kennedy was not presidential, they meant he was not Protestant, and nobody took them seriously. And so on, and so on. There is WP:FRINGE, and then there is WP:DUE. Your comment is baseless and recklessly hyperbolic. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

  You just made my case. There are plenty of voters that didn't think Obama was Presidential including Hillary Clinton in 2008 when she answered that 4 am call. If you dismiss all critics of Obama's fitness for the office as racist, you are essentially making the argument as to why such statements are ridiculous in the lead. Basically you are saying "Trump criticised Obama so he must be racist." It lacks intellectual rigor. I guess you could try adding "racist" to Clinton's lead when she ran against Obama and questioned his ability to be President, based on your reasoning above, but I think most people would see it as crass and shallow. --DHeyward (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

  I'm not talking about stupid things candidates say during campaigns. I'm talking about reliable sources. And "fitness for office" is not what "presidential" means as I understand it. It's about how comporting oneself with dignity and composure, being a leader not a divider. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

  Supreme Court Justice Garland agrees with you about being a leader, not a divider. Again those labels are meaningless and uninformative which is "racist", "leader" and "divisive" are not lead-worthy descriptions as they apply to every president (and candidate). --DHeyward (talk) 06:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Uncertain - I'm kind of on the fence about this. On one hand, it has received extensive coverage over a large span of Trump's life. On the other hand, there are quite a few contenders for inclusion in the lead: Trump's wealth, his relationship with the truth, his ramshackle presidential administration, his personality, his television celebrity, his extramarital exploits, his lawsuits, his taste in decor, his grasp of geopolitical affairs, and so on. Obviously, putting all of this in the lead would overwhelm readers. A nuanced subject like racism has to treated carefully and is not particularly well-suited to being summarized. I'm open to being convinced that this is something that must be in the lead, but at the moment, I lean ever so slightly toward opposing this.- MrX 🖋 23:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

  I stand by what I said in the open RfC about the general nature of the current lead. We are in the bizarre position of being unable to remedy that largely because we can't decide which of the many lead-worthy controversies are the most lead-worthy. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Racism is surely the most significant in terms of repercussions and connecting with voters, not just a "controversy" like the other examples. zzz (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps. If by connecting with voters, you mean that (many) voters love his racially-provocative remarks, then you are very correct.- MrX 🖋 23:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

We already include Trump's wealth, his relationship with the truth, his television celebrity; his extramarital exploits should probably be included under that sexual misconduct allegations thing; his lawsuits haven't received a 10th of the coverage, his taste in decor is obviously trivial, his grasp of geopolitical affairs probably not specifically included, his ramshackle presidential administration should probably be included (certainly a large portion of the coverage of his administration is its constant firings etc, actually not even in the body.. addendum: comey thing is there but not really explained well), his personality could be covered in the previous. Agree 100% with mandruss. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose We don't include all the terrible things people have criticized Obama, Bush, or Clinton for in the lead section, and for good reason. It effectively includes personal attacks through using weasel words, which is clearly not allowed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support Please see my note below. Gandydancer (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose (qualified) - I think Trump's racism is disgusting, and it is certainly a defining characteristic of his entire adult life; however, his racist acts/comments are difficult to articulate without the proper context, and I think it would be impossible to fairly and accurately summarize them in a one or two sentence addition to the lede. With all that said, it might be possible to carefully include something the mentions the "controversial behaviors" the man has, since that term could encompass both sexual misconduct (mentioned in an earlier thread) and racist views and actions. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Power~enwiki. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – Most politicians have been heavily criticized for some perceived flaw or other. Trump is not exceptional, except for the amount of coverage and armchair analysis of everything he says. — JFG ^talk 14:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

(Redacted)

Touché — JFG ^talk 14:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per above - I'd imagine every politician has one time or another been labelled a racist ... not really something that should be in a BLP lede. –Davey2010^Talk 20:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - The slave-owning US Presidents, don't have such wording in their intros. This smacks of recentism/incumbency observations. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - What, again with this junk ? Off the top of my head

• Character assassination fails WP:BLPSTYLE and the vague slur fails WP:LABEL although the vagueness feels more a WP:WEASEL.
• Not a BLP event or major theme important to his life so WP:OFFTOPIC. If it is about comments of his Presidency then it goes (unlikely) to that article not this one, and may have to talk about the big blue donkey in the room that such claims are also said to have a partisan/political motivation.
• This is unsupported by proposal detail or justification evidence. Asking for carte blanche to just drop a whole section for criticism seems kind of asking for permission to WP:SYNTH together everything in a negative category into portrayal of character trait and major significance. Doing it just on a vague request is unacceptable.

Cheers, Markbassett (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support. This is without doubt the most important aspect of his political worldview and more importantly the world's perception of his political views. --Tataral (talk) 06:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is without doubt the least important aspect of his political worldview and less importantly the world's perception of his political views. --Malerooster (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion: Adding criticized as racist to lead

• I believe you are proposing adding this to the lede, Galobtter, where it would not be justified. This is not definitive of Trump. Such aspersions are merely cast by political opponents. Trump is vulnerable to such attacks because he has entered the fray in tendentious areas such as border control and immigration. Much of the world is non-white, thus politically-motivated allegations of racism are always on the table. But I don't think they are definitive of Trump. Bus stop (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes in the lead (clarified proposal) Well no one is saying it is definitive of trump..just one aspect, important enough for the lead. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

"Definitive"? Definitely. RS have described: narcissism, womanizer, greedy, liar, racist, power hungry, ignorant,... All are documented well enough to be worthy of mention in the lead, as long as they are treated properly in the body, and they should be. Just his dubious relationship to truth could make an article of remarkable size. I have over 300 RS on that subject alone, and it's a subject of unquestioned notability. Some consider it the single most defining aspect of his character, second only to his narcissism. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Bus stop please don't get into personal opinions or disparagement. SPECIFICO talk 22:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• The lead has no information from the Public profile section. It does mention His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements were controversial or false....as though it is from his past and not a current issue. It's really hard for me to understand how the lead can be considered to be an overview of this man without at least one sentence about his public profile while it continues to be a topic for both domestic and world-wide discussion. Gandydancer (talk) 03:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Well, the lead of Adolf Hitler doesn't talk about his racism either, just his "racially motivated ideology". Maybe we can compromise with something like that here. EEng 08:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe, if he murders ~10 million innocent people and gets disavowed by his own country. Doesn't seem very likely. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm simply saying that no one would claim that Hitler was less racist than is Trump, and yet Hitler's lead doesn't use the word racism. Otherwise I don't see what you're getting at: Hitler was more intelligent and less self-absorbed than Trump, was a better public speaker and administrator, surrounded himself with more competent people, had no apparent history of sexual assault, had way more discipline in his torchlight rallies, etc. etc., so comparing Trump to Hitler is absurd. EEng 14:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. So let's stop comparing Trump's lead to Hitler's lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course, we'll have to revisit that if Trump does indeed end up disavowed by his country. It's early days yet. EEng 19:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

there is no mention of Donald Trump's denial of saying shithole countries. I think it's just as important as the unsubstantiated allegation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontier teg (talk • contribs) 03:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Frontier teg: The comment is mentioned in Racial views of Donald Trump as well as other articles. I don't know about his denial that he said it, but not every petty political squabble that crosses the TV screen needs to be included in this encyclopedia. The news media have already moved on to other daily controversies. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for closure

I recently closed this informal survey as consensus to exclude and was reverted by Signedzzz claiming no consensus. Because we are both involved, I have now requested a formal closure by an uninvolved editor.[1] — JFG ^talk 00:03, 8 February 2018 (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.

Disambig?

There's no need for the disambig notice at the head of this article; it detracts from it and I don't think that's done for other president's pages, is it? Xerton (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know, but it has been discussed and has consensus. See #Current consensus item 17. If there are other presidents who share their name with one or more other persons who have Wikipedia articles, they might warrant such a hatnote—but that's not for discussion here. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Washington has the same kind of dab notice, although more detailed. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Real News Update (Trump TV)

You are invited to participate in Talk:Real News Update#RfC: claims of news stories ignored by the media. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Awards in the infobox

Should the awards listed in the infobox as they are laid out currently stay or go?

They wouldn't have added a section for awards there if they didn't want them listed, so there was a reason for the madness.

Vjmlhds (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: This edit violated bullet 1 of the editing restrictions laid out at the top of this page, and I'll be reverting it. You've been advised of those restrictions before.[2][3] Don't do this again. I have no opinion on the content issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure I would call Time Man of the Year an "award." It's a distinction but it does not have a strictly positive connotation to it since many villainous individuals have also gotten the distinction. Hollywood walk of fame is also a bit dubious. It's not like the Oscars or Golden Globes which are clearly awards. It is more an acknowledgement of his fame. The other two "hall of fame" entries probably do meet the definition of awards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that the easiest and quickest way to avoid a long and lengthy discussion is to just link to the article. If someone has a strong case for selecting what they believe are the most appropriate for the infobox then I am sure people will be happy to listen, but it could be a long and tedious consensus making process. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not that big of a deal, just throwing it out there, so I'm not gonna make a fuss over this. Regarding bullet 1, All I did was make 1 reversion. I made the original edit in question, it got changed and I made only 1 reversion. There is a difference between an edit and a reversion. I stayed within the letter of the law at all times. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Someone challenged your material by removing it, and then you reverted that edit. That breaks the editing restrictions noted at the top of this page. Just a few weeks ago, I was blocked for reinserting challenged material, and I wasn't even responsible for adding it in the first place. So no, you have broken the letter of the law and could be sanctioned for it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: I just want it to be clear - any edit made counts as the 1RR? Because I thought a revert was simply undoing an edit and putting back your version, which I only did once. So if a single edit counts as the 1RR, then just make it clear to me, so I'll know going forward. I'm not looking to upset apple carts, I just want to know the boundaries...that's all. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

There is a separate restriction (not 1RR): Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit. - that you violated. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: If I'm guilty of anything, it's that I don't know every little restriction. I'm sorry, but you have to really be in the weeds to know every little clause. I did not intend to violate the consensus clause or any other clause. I thought I was within bounds of the 1RR clause, but if there was an issue, I apologize...not my intent. So going forward, if I make an edit, and it gets changed, just leave it alone - fine. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Even a single edit may be in violation, regardless of whether or not it is a violation of 1RR (or even a reversion at all). The instructions are at the top of this talk page. And you have already been given an alert about this once this year, and you also received the previous version of the alert. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: I'll just make it easy for everybody...I'll just stay as far away from this article as I can, as even though I only mean to edit it with the best of intentions, there's too many landmines here to try to navigate without stepping on one. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

If the first two clearly-stated bullets in the prominent box at the top of this page are really too much for you to handle, that's probably a wise decision. Of course it will mean avoiding all articles that are under the remedies. My preference would be for you to learn the two bullets and continue participating.
You seem to believe that good intentions are enough, but you're mistaken. We also need to observe a bit of fairly inflexible process at articles under these ArbCom remedies. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Vjmlhds - that seems OK, but even better would be to just have a "See more" as other people use. Looking at other presidents, it seems usage varies a bit. Ronald Reagan shows a couple then links to a section of his Bio and never shows his military awards; George H. W. Bush awards are not shown and his military awards are subdued and reduced, and the Medal of Freedom is shown as 'legacy'; Bill Clinton has an honors section, but the template does not link to it; etcetera. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 February 2018

I would like to request editing Make america great 1 (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. General Ization ^Talk 22:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Two campaign chairs convicted of child sex trafficking

Has any other president ever had two campaign chairs convicted of child sex trafficking? Trump's are Ralph Shortey [4] and Tim Nolan (politician) [5]. If this is a record, are there any reasons it isn't noteworthy? 185.13.106.114 (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: you wrote, "not convicted, plead guilty, not really related to Trump, also redacted some stuff as can't determine if exactly correct."[6] In the United States system of justice, criminal convictions are secured by guilty pleas and trials. This incident is part of a pattern and practice of ethical lapses which are clearly noteworthy for the main article of any major political figure.

Please observe WP:TALK and refrain from trying to censor facts established by reliable authorities. 185.13.106.114 (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

You need to provide (reliable) sources, otherwise this violates our WP:BLP policy.- MrX 🖋 16:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Here, I provided sources for you: [7][8][9]. I don't believe this material belongs in this biography per WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:NOTSCANDAL. Possibly it could be added to the campaign article.- MrX 🖋 16:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

How many campaign chairs would need to be convicted of child sex trafficking before you would consider it noteworthy? 185.13.106.114 (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

When there are sources that connect it to trump Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

How is it that you don't see campaign chairs as connected? 185.13.106.114 (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

It's noteworthy, but not for this article. The Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 article would be a better target for this, and of course the articles for each man. Local consensus will determine what to do. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The charges:

• Ralph Shortey: In March 22, 2017, Shortey resigned after being charged with three felony counts relating to soliciting prostitution from a male minor. In September 2017, a federal grand jury in Oklahoma City indicted Shortey on four counts of human trafficking and child pornography.
• Tim Nolan: In 2017, Nolan was charged with 28 felonies including charges of rape, human trafficking, witness tampering, prostitution, unlawful transaction with a minor and sodomy. There were 22 victims, including eight juveniles. (Convictions followed. See article.)

BullRangifer (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump#Sexual misconduct allegations in the current revision is a subsection of the "2016 presidential campaign" section. Have most of Trump's sexual misconduct allegations been limited to the campaign? Your summary should perhaps point out that Shortey was Trump's Oklahoma campaign chair, as Nolan was in Kentucky. 185.13.106.114 (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

We have to avoid guilt by association. A state campaign chair is not a particularly high office. Any connection between the child sex trafficking and Trump is incidental at best. This has nothing to do with Trump's sexual misconduct allegations.- MrX 🖋 19:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

State campaign chairs are appointees whose vetting is the responsibility of the candidate, just like all their other top campaign officials. There is no government agency, commission, officials, or any other individuals or groups who are responsible for vetting campaign chairs. Where else can the buck stop? 185.13.106.114 (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Enough. This does not belong here. If it belongs anywhere, it would be Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 and/or articles related to the individuals responsible. Please stop trying to shop it here, because it violates WP:WEIGHT (among other policies). -- Scjessey (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

What is your reasoning for saying it's undue weight? The United States has never had a President with a single state campaign chair convicted of child sex trafficking, let alone two. And again, there are already sex abuse allegation lists in this article's section on the campaign. And the convictions were both for crimes that took place during the campaign. If you have actual reasons or an example from articles on other national leaders supporting your assertion that reporting the convictions is undue weight, please state them. 185.13.106.114 (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I haven't seen any sources suggesting that Trump has any culpability related to this. To claim sufficient weight—especially in this main bio article, which has to cover an entire 70-year life in a fairly small space—is to add our own judgment of culpability, which violates content policy. For comparison, how about showing one or two examples where other presidents' main bio articles mention minor campaign or administration officials who have been convicted of / pled guilty to crimes and got a bit of inconsequential press coverage. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

185.13.106.114, we apply weight in a biography according to how important something is in relation to the entire life of the subject. Disturbing though the matter is, it is inconsequential to the entire life of Donald Trump. As far as reliable sources are concerned, it is a relatively minor matter (it received scant national coverage) concerning some relatively unimportant people on a relatively low rung of the Trump campaign ladder. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I just saw a report suggesting Nolan misrepresented himself as a campaign chair,[10] so I must agree. 83.137.1.204 (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 could be a place to include it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations are not just limited to the campaign, but if Nolan lied about being the state chair,[11] then it's not a potential pattern. 83.137.1.204 (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• This article is a biography of Donald Trump. It is not a repository for mentioning every person or issue related to Donald Trump. It should take a broad, historic view of Trump's life, discussing (concisely!) the most significant aspects per WP:NPOV and WP:PROPORTION, and should not cram in yesterday's headlines just because anonymous users want the information here. If Trump says he likes chocolate ice cream, and I really like chocolate ice cream, that is no good reason for it to be in his biography, even if verifiable. An encyclopedia article is a summation of significant information on a subject, not not everything in the universe tangentially connected to the subject. Items in the news right now may not merit inclusion in the grand scheme of things per Wikipedia:Recentism (digression: it is lamentable that too many articles are constructed primarily from myopic daily news articles). We do NOT add (or remove) material to support a personal narrative, nor to right great wrongs. See also essays on Subjective importance. Mention of the two convicted campaign chairs has merit elsewhere in Wikipedia (indeed, both subjects have their own article), but giving them undue attention in this or any other article is simply pushing a personal agenda. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Russian intelligence officials offered to sell the CIA damaging information about Trump

Is this [12] noteworthy? 185.13.106.114 (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

"The Russians"? I didn't know 150 million people were one monolithic bloc - thanks for telling me that. Xerton (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Rephrased, thank you. 185.13.106.114 (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Did the sale in question take place? Has any information been verified which was to be part of that sale? What is the point making posts of this type? This is nothing but unverified rumors, innuendo and supposition. None of it has any place in this article. Xerton (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

In articles about widely covered people news is only noteworthy if all major news networks and newspapers cover it. If you want to edit the article, it is better not to read The Intercept, just watch CNN. TFD (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/politics/us-cyberweapons-russia-trump.html 83.137.1.204 (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump Violates the Constitutional Rights on Wikipedia

Its not correct to allow information hat deemed inappropriate (racial remarks, discriminating against races or immigrant and others) to Wikipedia users.

Cases like this what makes it no longer use for educational purposes, and more on general purpose on Wikipedia. BusriderSF2015 09:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@BusriderSF2015: I'm sorry, I don't seem to understand. Could you clarify? PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

OR? Sources needed

We can't state in WPs voice that Art of the Deal and the Women's March are "most notable" without RS that view represents widespread public consensus.Is there sourcing for this opinion? SPECIFICO talk 19:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Books on Trump and religion

Here are some sources which may be relevant to inform sections (here or in sub-articles) on Trump's religion, and/or the role of religion in his election and presidency. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Books

• Stephen Strang (2017). God and Donald Trump. Charisma Media. ISBN 978-1-62999-486-4.
• Stephen Mansfield (2017). Choosing Donald Trump: God, Anger, Hope, and Why Christian Conservatives Supported Him. Baker Books. ISBN 978-1-4934-1225-9.
• David Brody; Scott Lamb (2018). The Faith of Donald J. Trump: A Spiritual Biography. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-274959-8.

Reviews/commentary on the above books

• Banks, Adelle M. (January 19, 2018). "Author of books on presidents' faith says Trump misunderstands evangelicals". Religion News Service.
• Sullivan, Amy (January 27, 2018). "Millions of Americans Believe God Made Trump President". POLITICO Magazine.
• Kilgore, Ed (February 5, 2018). "The Christian Right's Willful Faith in Trump". New York.
• "3 new books analyze Trump's faith and his faithful followers". The Salt Lake Tribune. February 8, 2018.

other sources

• Percy, Martyn (6 February 2018). "To know Donald Trump's faith is to understand his politics". The Guardian. (Opinion)

I was particularly impressed with the table of contents in the Brody and Lamb book. Why wouldn't any objective profile lead off with a chapter entitled, "This Trump Is Your Trump"? Also does Charisma Media publish self-help books? Asking for a friend. 83.137.1.204 (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)