This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 130

←

Archive 135

Archive 136

Archive 137

Archive 138

Archive 139

Archive 140

In the infobox, the occupation parameter currently lists four: "Politician, businessman, television presenter, author". I have concerns about the verifiability of describing Trump as an author, given that the most reliable sourcing we have available, such as Jane Mayer's reporting for The New Yorker, does not confirm that Trump actually wrote any of the books released under his name. I think we ought to change it to something else or remove it entirely. Thoughts? {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 04:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

It is common for celebrities to use ghostwriters and I don't know of evidence he actually wrote any of them, so I don't see it passes WP:V and I support removal. Trump has a well-reported preference to dictate to people, including attorneys who file documents in which Trump's "voice" is evident, and we've all seen him speak in a stream of consciousness for which he seems to rely on others to take it all down. Dictating some thoughts for a writer to pull into narrative form is not the same as sitting down and thoughtfully writing. Does anyone think he's the sort of man with the patience and temperament to write an entire book when he's not even known for reading them? soibangla ( talk) 04:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Remove it. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 17:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

In Current Consensus #41, we had an RFC ( Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_107#RfC:_books_in_lead) which resulted in his books being omitted from the lead. As such, I take this as a sign that we should remove it from the infobox as well. Funnily enough, I don't remember having started this RFC. starship .paint ( exalt) 06:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I Agree that it should most likely be removed, per the above. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs | please use {{ ping}} on reply)} 16:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it, as we all seem to be in agreement here so far. Discussion can of course continue if anyone has further perspectives. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 20:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

45 = 41

https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2021/?page=overall

soibangla ( talk) 17:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Pretty goofy. I wonder who they polled? SPECIFICO talk 19:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Here are the participants. You would need a secondary source before posting the info. I note that during their presidencies, Nixon, Reagan, George W. Bush and Trump were all considered by liberals to be the worst president in history. Even Trump has moved up to fourth worst, W.'s at 29 and Reagan is now at 9. TFD ( talk) 00:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes secondary source(s) would be helpful - otherwise it's like US News' college rankings or Forbes' rich list. SPECIFICO talk 01:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Proof of concept WaPo SPECIFICO talk 01:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I find it interesting that the editorial team at the WaPo was clearly surprised enough by his "not last" place to include it in the headline itself. It's not surprising, just interesting that they held such unconscious bias about what they expected (i.e. last) to be the results that they found the most newsworthy thing that "Trump wasn't last". That being said I agree with starship paint's addition to the article of the survey itself without any sensationalizing here. (signed after the fact, apologies) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 03:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The editorial team? You mean the editorial board that publishes opinions and is Chinese walled from the news division, as is the case with all high-quality broadsheets? And where was the sensationalizing here? Nowhere, that's where. soibangla ( talk) 01:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I meant the editorial team - as in the people with final say over the headlines and who follow rules which at most news outlets attempt to reduce bias of individual reporters/teams by providing a final "go" for publication. I was also referring to SP's edit which did not include sensationalizing here on Wikipedia - sorry that wasn't clear. The headline itself was sensationalizing with the three word leading sentence of "Trump wasn't last". That implies the reader will think Trump would be last, which is a pretty clear example of bias as there's at least half of the country who would rank at least someone below Trump. It's a great example of bias at that news organization - not extreme bias on the level of even Fox News nowadays, but still clear bias nonetheless. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 03:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, please sign whatever your undecipherable user name might be, Be. SPECIFICO talk 03:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry - didn't realize I didn't. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 03:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

there's at least half of the country who would rank at least someone below Trump. That is an illolgical and unsupported statement. SPECIFICO talk 03:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

He isn't even the worst recent president - with polls of the public showing Nixon lower than Trump by a decent margin. Not unsupported either - our article on the subject covers that Gallup poll well. It's also not illogical at all - if you seriously think that Trump is considered the "worst president" by half of America, that'd be statistically improbable and itself is unsupported. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 05:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

That implies the reader will think Trump would be last, Though it could also mean he wasn't last as many had long insisted he was, so he came out looking better than his critics had expected. soibangla ( talk) 05:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

if you seriously think that Trump is considered the "worst president" by half of America How do you get that from Specifico's ? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 20:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

the editorial team at the WaPo was clearly surprised enough by his "not last" place to include it in the headline itself. I think you're reading too much into it. The headline sums up the article pretty well. What should they have written, "Trump was ranked 41st"? The entire article sounds neutral to me, despite the "despite" in the very first sentence. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 20:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Current consensus #23 (above) has it that "liar"/"lie"/"lying" are not to be employed in Wikipedia voice in this article. It seems to me that it is time to reassess this consensus...which now seems rather quaint. I've just added a sentence on the Big lie to the article in the "False Statements" section. Rather often now we see "lie" used in reliable sources, and Trump's obvious disinformation and "malicious intent" has been documented and is now persistent. Trump is apparently having trouble finding a publisher for his book with the major publishers because of the obvious lies/disinformation it would contain and the trouble it would bring upon the publisher. There are several not so obvious questions such as whether or how to use "lie" in the article, or whether the issue should be mentioned in the lead. My own opinion is yes to both issues - it has become a major and persistent aspect of Trump and Trumpism. But without much more than that, I raise the issue for a general discussion. It seems to me that "Big Lie" is due for a mention in the lead. Should Current consensus #23 be updated/revised? Thoughts? Bdushaw ( talk) 00:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree it is (long past) time to reassess the consensus. And to begin with "Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency" should be changed to "Trump made tens of thousands of false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency," which is consistent with lead of Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. soibangla ( talk) 02:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Something like this?

Though journalists and analysts were initially reluctant to characterize Trump's falsehoods as knowing lies, his repetition of significant falsehoods after they had been persistently refuted caused them to characterize many of the falsehoods as lies. [1]

Also:

Of the 933 Trump statements analyzed by Politifact, a greater percentage were rated "Pants on Fire" than "True" or "Mostly True." [2]

soibangla ( talk) 17:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Where is everybody? This is a good idea. 208.117.88.196 ( talk) 02:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

As others in the previous discussions have said, "lies", as opposed to false statements/claims, implies malicious intent, so cannot be included in wikivoice, same goes for Big Lie.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that subjective statements should be avoided entirely as they severely reduce the credibility of the article. Regardless of whether the source is considered to be neutral or not, it does not impart a neutral tone when the article takes a side on non-conclusive issues. Instead, state objective claims as matter-of-fact and if subjective claims must be made, the editor should specify who is making the claim (ie. According to officials at the CDC, Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat... etc). Valepio ( talk) 20:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Who sez it implies malicious intent? It entails knowledge that the statement is false. In Trump's case most reporting suggests he was indifferent to the harm to others. His intent was to benefit himself at the expense of truth. That's not getting into judgment about whether to call it malicious. At any rate, the press struggled with its reporting and pulled its punches well into Trump's presidential term. I think the center shifted and that today it is no longer reluctant to indicate the racist, authoritatian, dishonest or other unfortunate aspects of his behavior and speech. We need to be very sure of our sourcing, but we do need to follow the sources, and they have changed. SPECIFICO talk 00:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

These recent comments merely revisit the previous arguments and conclusions. Back then, I agreed with them. The point of this posting was that Trump's statements, particularly concerning election integrity, have become so extensive and so obvious a lie - explicitly incorrect with explicitly malicious intent - that the subject of using the word lie deserved a fresh discussion. For some 16 months now, Trump has repeated the same lie. The misinformation has been explicitly called out by all manner of reliable sources, the some 80 court cases, and the complete lack of supporting evidence. The consequences have been malicious - the Jan. 6th incident, the rise of domestic terror threat, the new laws passed to suppress voting, the Arizona "audit" which is widely view as a partisan vote-hunt, etc. Reliable sources now use the word "lie" regularly, whereas they did not before. These were several of the reasons I posted here requesting an updated discussion of the situation (rather than a restating of old discussions and conclusions). Bdushaw ( talk) 09:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

"Lie" and "Untrue statement" are not synonyms, even though in casual speech people use them like they are. Lie implies that the speaker disbelieves the statement but says it anyway. We can certainly often know, and our sources can often know, that Trump said something that is factually untrue. It's a bit harder to know whether Trump himself believed it at the time. Sometimes our sources may have reporting that shows that (e.g., a hyothetical public statement "There were _____ people at my rally" and a hypothetical leaked private statement "Why weren't there _____ people at my rally?"). Other times they report that he said something that doesn't pass any kind of fact check, but it's unclear whether or not he believed it at the time. Just yesterday I read an article in a reliable source that called Trump's election claims "lies" while simultaneously reporting that he makes the same claims in private to his closest associates ... if that reporting is true, it seems like he's making false statements (claiming to have won the election, which is contrary to fact) but not lying (he's saying what he really believes). We should be more conservative than our sources in the language that we use. News sources are allowed to be partisan, or to use hyperbolic language for purposes of persuading their readers. We strive to be neutral. We should never state or imply that something is a lie (as opposed to just untrue) unless our sources are reporting that the speaker knows or believes their statement to be false. Vadder ( talk) 16:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

If RS says he lied so can we. And people do lie, even to family and friends. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not agree with your logic, which seems to go something like this: 1. People do lie to their family and friends. 2. Trump said untrue things to his family and friends. 3. Therefore Trump was definitely lying to his family and friends. Unless you can show that 1 and 2 are related statements (e.g., with SOME kind of evidence of Trump knowingly saying something that isn't true), 3 does not follow 1 and 2. And maybe we are in some sense allowed to parrot a reliable source even when its out over its skis using language its own reporting doesn't support, but we definitely should not do that. That's called good editorial judgement. Vadder ( talk) 16:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

NO, my logic was if RS say he lied so do we. The rest was in response to (what seemed to be) an implication that if he also said it in private he was not lying. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I think the exact opposite: Wikipedia articles should never state "Trump made false claims of electoral fraud". Instead, a more neutral wording should be used, like "he made claims of electoral fraud, which have been dismissed by several judges as fraudulent".

We must be very careful about especially controversial subjects like this. Remember that we are only repeating what sources claim. So we must be sure to refer to them, rather than making open statements that may be interpreted as biased. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 20:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

we are only repeating what sources claim. No, we are presenting what reliable sources consistently and flatly report: the claims are false. The matter at hand here is whether they constitute lies. soibangla ( talk) 20:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

...and if reliable sources state flatly that Trump has lied, is it appropriate (at this time, for these specific particularly egregious cases) for Wikipedia to use the word "lie" in Wikivoice. (is the matter at hand) Bdushaw ( talk) 23:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

If it is adequately contextualized in a manner similar to the first green box above, I say yes. soibangla ( talk) 00:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Ladies and Gents, Bob Woodward reported that Trump told him he was lying about Covid and told him why. This was documented with recordings. There are other such examples reported in various books that came out -- Stable Genius and others -- in the later years of Trump's presidency. This is well-documented. SPECIFICO talk 00:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Then I'll be consistent with what I wrote above. When reliable sources like Woodward specifically report on Trump believing one thing and saying something else, then consistent with the strength and weight of such sourcing (Bob Woodward is a strong source on which to rely) we should say "lie" and "lied" about such statements ... but only those statements. Vadder ( talk) 00:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like you dove in here without being particularly familiar with RS reporting on the matter. It's widespread. Please review recent RS discussions of his rhetoric. You will find the central narrative is that he has lied about a wide range of important matters and that the consequences have been significant, such that WP needs to reflect that narrative. SPECIFICO talk 13:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

These days I regularly run across articles such as this one/CNN that use the word lie in connection with Trump's election claims. A year ago even, I believe you would not have seen such language. Bdushaw ( talk) 01:50, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Lets have a few examples of RS saying he told lies [ [3]] [ [4]] [ [5]] [ [6]] [ [7]] [ [8]], do we need any more? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I glanced and several of the citations. They seemed to be mostly opinion pieces, alas, which won't do. No matter, there are numerous other RS's. The CNN article I cited was a straight up news article by two reporters. It has the nonchalant sentence "Those restrictions are among several election-related provisions included in the budget in a state where Republican legislative leaders have embraced and advanced former President Donald Trump's lies about widespread voter fraud." As I've mentioned, the use of the word "lie" like this is a change from when the use of the word was first discussed here. Bdushaw ( talk) 14:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

As I said, there are more. These were just the first ones I found. It was just to illustrate that yes, he has been called a lair, lots of times. So far no RS has been produced denying he tells lies. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

They seemed to be mostly opinion pieces. Which ones? soibangla ( talk) 14:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Under the Post-Presidency section it says "Trump's false claims concerning the 2020 election were commonly referred to as the "big lie" by his critics. In May 2020..." I'd change it to "In May 2021" if I could but I don't have extended permissions. It is just a typo and if someone with permissions could please change it that would be very nice. Thank you CurrentlyResearching ( talk) 20:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing out the error. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 21:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

As Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church documents, it now seems that Trump had little to do with the clearing of the square. It doesn't seem true that "The removal had been ordered by Attorney General William Barr." All it seems we can say now is that Trump had a photo op there. I don't think this is worth mentioning in a biography of Trump which is already excessively long.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources? Slatersteven ( talk) 09:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

[9] [10] and see the article.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

These only seem to talk about the park police, and says it does not fully address questions about the involvement of other agencies or the Trump administration in the events of June 1. So I am not sure its quite the exoneration you say it is. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

But the report’s author was careful to warn it was not to be seen as a definitive account of the day, in part because so many other law enforcement agencies were involved. The inspector general, Mark L. Greenblatt, noted that it was not in his jurisdiction to investigate what the Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies knew and who might have ordered them to use force to clear the park. “It was a fulsome review of everything in our jurisdiction,” Mr. Greenblatt said in an interview. “The unfortunate thing is not everything is in our jurisdiction.” ( NYT). Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say it was an "exoneration" or a "definitive account". The point is there is very thin justification for including this incident in this article.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 21:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we should remove mention of Barr. The report doesn’t exonerate Barr, but it does establish that there were other factors for the protester clearing other than Barr. Keeping his supposed order in appears to give the impression that Barr was the sole reason behind the clearing. Between inserting the fence explanation also, versus removing Barr, I’d say we remove Barr. Also, the report doesn't exonerate Trump, or the Secret Service, so I would say leave the wider incident in. starship .paint ( exalt) 03:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

"Exonerate" them from what?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 06:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I think, at least by this conversation's logic, you should know. You're the one who allegedly brought it up. So yeah, you tell 'em, Jack! InedibleHulk ( talk) 08:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Jack Upland: - exonerate from having little to do with the clearing of the square, as you said. Specifically from clearing the square so that Trump could walk over. starship .paint ( exalt) 08:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think "exonerate" is an appropriate term. It suggests that clearing the square was a crime, and it suggests that Trump is guilty (of something) until proven innocent. I think it does seem that Trump had little to do with clearing the square. That's not an "exoneration". But this is a bio. It's not about convicting or exonerating Trump.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Jack Upland: - take it up with Trump: Thank you to the Department of the Interior Inspector General for Completely and Totally exonerating me in the clearing of Lafayette Park [11] starship .paint ( exalt) 13:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Trump is not editing this page. You are.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 01:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Premise: wrong. Conclusion: wrong. Oppose. SPECIFICO talk 10:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Did Barr order the clearing of Lafayette Park when he was there?

Text at present is: The removal was reportedly ordered by Attorney General William Barr, sourced to two articles in WaPo. 1 2

So, WaPo is saying that, according to the source, Barr ordered the clearing when he arrived at Lafayette Park to survey the scene, which is around 6:10 p.m. according to their timeline.

This was Barr's response to AP. He essentially says he wanted the park cleared, but he didn't give the order.

... and according to the Interior OIG's recent report, this was the characterization of the 6:10 p.m. conversation by the USPP operations commander, whom Barr was talking to. Essentially he backs up what Barr is saying. Barr wants the park cleared, but never gives the order to do it.

So, why should we continue to state in Trump's article that The removal was reportedly ordered by Attorney General William Barr, when Barr's denial has been corroborated with the person he was speaking to at 6:10 p.m.? Instead we rely on a Justice Department official (WaPo's source) who we don't even know whether they were on the scene? They may have simply heard the story from someone else and the message may have been warped a bit. Also, this is Trump's article, not Barr's. Why should we retain this disputed information on Barr? starship .paint ( exalt) 14:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Because, WP:MANDY, inter alia. I'm surprised to see your acceptance of the bizarre conincidence asserted above. SPECIFICO talk 15:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

"He conferred with them to check on the status and basically said: 'This needs to be done. Get it done,' " the Justice Department official said.—your bolding. "I was frustrated and I was also worried that as the crowd grew, it was going to be harder and harder to do. So my attitude was get it done, but I didn’t say, ‘Go do it.'" Translated: I didn't have to say it in words, my attitude did the talking? Damn the demonstrators, full speed ahead? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Barr has a well-earned reputation in RS reporting and analysis of blunt and clumsy misdirection and equivocation that by now is laughably unconvincing. In context, his words belie the meaning and intention of denial you seem to be willing to ascribe to them. The precipitous, unnecessary, and violent dispersal of the demonstrators was instigated by the White House for the photo-op. You will not find RS disputing that, regardless of whatever cherrypicked bits you adduce from the very limited current report. SPECIFICO talk 17:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll leave these here: NBC News, Washington Post, CNN, NYT, and many more. While any "speeding up" can be considered still viable, it's clear that reliable sources are walking back their claims that the protestors were cleared just so Trump could get to the church. They were going to be cleared that day anyway at some point, and as the report clearly says, they were already in the process of being cleared before Trump even wanted to go to the church. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 18:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@ SPECIFICO and Space4Time3Continuum2x: - I am well aware of Barr’s reputation. I didn’t base this on his own words. I based this on the OIG’s investigations and the US Park Police operations commander. Did Barr attempt to speed up the clearing? The answer is most likely yes. Did Barr order the clearing? The answer clearly seems to be no, based on the person he was talking to. Please don’t accuse me of cherry-picking the report, SPECIFICO. What parts of the 6:10 p.m. incident did I miss out? starship .paint ( exalt) 01:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Almost the entire context, before during, and after. SPECIFICO talk 01:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

It's the other way around. The clearing of the square was previously interpreted in the context of Trump's photo op. Now, with more information, we know that's misleading.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 02:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Contemporary RS are no longer claiming that the sole reason for the clearing was the photo op. They all mention the fencing explanation. Only one out of the ten, CNN, uses a news article to mention Barr's reported order (in an analysis piece, WaPo does explore that, but in their news article, they didn't). Instead these RS do not say Barr gave the order. The most they claim is that he "encouraged", "urged". starship .paint ( exalt) 05:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

for starters for starters. SPECIFICO talk 09:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO - to bolster your case, you bring up a less prominent, more left-leaning than any I raised? One that outright says: Also unclear is what role Barr played in clearing the park? One that says: While the report does make clear that the president and other administration officials didn’t directly order the USPP to clear the park, it suggests Attorney General Barr indicated to USPP officials earlier in the day that he wanted protesters cleared ahead of Trump’s trip to the church. I get it, you get it, Vox gets it, there are unanswered questions about the clearing, about Barr. That's exactly why we should not present a one-sided story, that Barr reportedly ordered the clearing (at 6:10), ignoring that the OIG report says he did not order the clearing at 6:10. This is a matter for the main article. Not Trump's. starship .paint ( exalt) 04:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

These proto-fascist moments are personal, not presidential administration. Please don't weaken your argument with personal remarks or calling an RS discussion of context "left-leaning". SPECIFICO talk 05:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@ SPECIFICO: - my apologies, I accidentally deleted the word "outlet" from my post. What I meant to write was: you bring up a less prominent, more left-leaning outlet than any I raised? Which is to mean that Vox is less prominent and more left-leaning than the media outlets that I raised. It was not at all a personal remark that you brought up a left-leaning argument. starship .paint ( exalt) 06:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Another one. I'm afraid you've joined the case of some bad POV misrepresentations in this matter. SPECIFICO talk 06:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, an opinion article in The Week? Versus news articles in AP and Reuters, and more? I'm the one with POV misrepresentations? starship .paint ( exalt) 06:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

What's the difference between "order" and "encourage/urge" in this context? Barr (Justice Department) wasn't in the chain of command of USPP or the other law enforcement forces except BOP. All he could do was relay the commander in chief's intentions. Weren't you the one who pointed out that after Barr's pep talk the USPP guy hung his head, looking "deflated?" I'm not particularly attached to the Barr sentence but I don’t see that much has changed. Trump was furious about the bunker boy ridicule and "the poor impression created that he had no control over the protests consuming key downtown areas." His advisers + law enforcement decided to "gradually push protesters further away" from WH (my bolding). "By midday, Trump was working with close confidants on a plan to project his control over the city by walking across Lafayette Square outside the White House and over to the church" ( WaPo who—Otero, the guy on sabbatical from the Secret Service? ). The plans for the extended perimeter fence had been in the making since Saturday, the contractor said they could install the fence on Monday but only if the area was clear of protesters, USPP didn’t have the personnel to keep the area clear of protesters, so on Monday feds + national guard in riot gear are brought in, Trump decides now is the perfect time for a stroll in the park to project control, Barr’s attitude projects "do it now," and all hell breaks loose? "And the sequence of events described in the report suggests that the operation to clear the area turned violent soon after the Park Police were informed of Mr. Trump’s arrival" ( NYT). Irony of ironies: Trump wanted the optics of projecting his control, he got them, and now he claims he didn’t do it? Go figure. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The issue is NOT whatever Trump has said.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Space4Time3Continuum2x: - in my opinion, if Barr "ordered" the clearing, he assumes responsibility for it, as the USPP is carrying out his instruction. If he "encouraged/urged" it, then it was still the USPP's decision to make. Weren't you the one who pointed out that after Barr's pep talk the USPP guy hung his head, looking "deflated?" - according to the report, it's because he just found out that Trump was coming out. Does that prove Barr "ordered" something? No. Anyway, from reading the sources above, the difference between "ordered" and whatever was said that day at 6:10 was apparently significant to the OIG, to CNBC, to NBC, to WaPo, to ABC, and to Vox. So why should we ignore RS and maintain that he ordered it? starship .paint ( exalt) 04:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

LOgically, if there is very little difference between "ordered" and "urged" according to Space4Time3Continuum2x , why can't we compromise and change it to "urged" (with appropriate sourcing)?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 10:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Too courtly. Strongarmed, bullied, etc. much better. This park service report is extremely limited in scope and the other evidence of Trump/Barr/Milley/Ivanka involvement is strongly supportive of the top dogs' roles. SPECIFICO talk 13:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The Park Police had already decided to clear the square.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 20:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Please read the two articles I linked before repeating this irrelevant assertion yet again. Park police don't flashback harmless citizens. SPECIFICO talk 22:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

What sources are there that Barr "strongarmed" Park Police? What sources are there that Barr "bullied" Park Police? Again, AP says Barr "encouraging ... but being dismissed", NBC says Barr "urged ... [but] had no impact". Again, Vox says: unclear is what role Barr played in clearing the park starship .paint ( exalt) 04:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. This seems to be the persistent clinging to a story that has proved to be misleading. And people criticised QAnon!-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I made a minor edit for flow to the sentence in the article - if nobody has any problems with where this stands now, I think this was a good example of collaborative editing and thanks to all for their inputs and assistance in "correcting" this article based on the more recent sources. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 04:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Trump lowered unemployment amongst black communities in its lowest ever in American history. 109.180.183.13 ( talk) 19:15, 17 July 2021 (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. ―  Tartan357  ^Talk 19:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@ SPECIFICO: restored a completely unsourced statement to the lead of the article claiming Historians and scholars generally rank Trump as one of the country's worst presidents. There has been no consensus I aware of to include this. No to mentioned this claim was added completely unsourced, a direct violation of WP:V. SPECIFICO comments in the edit summary that maybe you have information about the poll and whether it's respected or reliable? If so, use talk. Please exercise caution reverting well-sourced content 1. This is not well-sourced content (it is not even sourced at all, see WP:BURDEN). 2. I don't have information, its not my responsibility, the WP:ONUS is on the person adding the material not me. 3. Assuming, this poll actually exists, it just one poll. Common sense should tell you that we need multiple polls, expecially since we are adding this to the lead.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 02:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Did you bother to visit the wikilink included, which contains multiple sources? - Aoidh ( talk) 02:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Rusf, I advised you to tread with caution here. Please consider. Very well sourced and the sourcing is discussed on talk well before your arrival here. SPECIFICO talk 03:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

There are numerous archived discussions about this in the George W. Bush talk pages. The same survey routinely ranked W. at or near last, although he is now no. 29. But there is scant mention of it in his article. I don't see any significance in ratings of recent presidents. The results depend on whom CSPAN asked. TFD ( talk) 04:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I'm curious whether the survey has the same sort of bias with all recent presidents, or just Republican ones? If it has the bias in only one direction, or only one party, that would greatly limit its ability to be used on WP as a reliable unbiased "ranking". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 05:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

If there is such a phenomenon, it might have less to do with bias than perhaps Republican presidents have policies that objectively just don't work but they still keep doing them. For example, many decades of data show that the economy, by a range of metrics, performs better under Democrat presidents than under Republican presidents. soibangla ( talk) 06:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not as obvious because clearly none of the recent presidents were in the same league as Washington, Lincoln and FDR and therefore no one could claim that Clinton or Obama were the best presidents ever. But I question whether Obama should be rated 10th or Kennedy rated 6th in the 2009 survey. While I get the point that W.'s policies were a failure, I don't see why Lyndon Johnson is rated so much higher than Nixon. TFD ( talk) 10:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you have those old surveys handy? I see the 2009 one ranked him 36th. soibangla ( talk) 06:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

C-SPAN total scores Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 11:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, but this is not about some unshakable cosmic judgment. It's about current perception that was widely noted in secondary RS. All these labels and polls are too one dimensional to convey much useful information, but Americans love them and that's why they're significant. SPECIFICO talk 10:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

All these labels and polls are too one dimensional to convey much useful information Sounds like a great reason not to put this in the lead. Useless information is the last thing this article needs more of.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 15:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I advised you to tread with caution here. Please consider. Very well sourced and the sourcing is discussed on talk well before your arrival here. You should take your own advice. You reinstated a controversial edit after only a few hours of discussion without even citing it in the article. You've been around here too long not to know better. So I would ask you to please consider treading with caution in the future, rather than try to start an edit war.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 15:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial about the material, it is simply the results of a historian survey. Also, as there is a restriction on restoring your own reverted material, the only possible edit warrior here would be you, if you persisted. Have some WP:TEA and relax. ValarianB ( talk) 16:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes it is controversial due to the fact the participants in this survey are college professors. According to this study Democrat history professors outnumber Republicans 33.5:1 (more than any other field in the study). So we're dealing with a very biased group of people here.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 16:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

It should always be considered that some may be Democrats not due to bias but because they apply the scientific method rather than beliefs to arrive at conclusions that happen to align with Democrat policies. A significant proportion of Republican policies are simply not rooted in facts and reality, as we've objectively observed in recent years. We've just experienced five years of a man who incessantly told falsehoods on an unprecedented scale and his party went along with it and they continue to do so without indications they will stop. We have entered an era that transcends the traditional politics of Democrats versus Republicans, or liberals versus conservatives, it's now about truth versus lies. soibangla ( talk) 17:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

So basically all Democrats can be trusted, all Republicans are liars. Democrats are always right, Republicans are always wrong. I would remind you that this is WP:NOTAFORUM, but you're probably convinced that your opinion is a fact.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 17:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Not what I said, but thanks for playing. Bye. soibangla ( talk) 17:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Its still way too early for this kind of judgment. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Mr. Rufs, being biased is not a consideration when determining whether a source is reliable or not. This is extremely basic Wikipedia 101. ValarianB ( talk) 17:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

It is an opinion-based source. Rarely do we insert WP:RSOPINION into the lead of an article (and certainly not without extensive discussion) since it creates a WP:WEIGHT issue.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 18:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It is a reliable source that conducted a survey of experts in the field. It seems that your objections here rest squarely on your personal dislike of the conclusions drawn. ValarianB ( talk) 18:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually no. Its a single survey done at a single point in time. Regardless of the credentials of the participants, it is an opinion-based survey. It is too soon to determine the long-term impact of Trump's policies. Is it possible that your support for this rest squarely on your personal approval of the conclusions drawn?-- Rusf10 ( talk) 19:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

"So basically all Democrats can be trusted, all Republicans are liars." This is the most reasonable statement you have stated in the entire discussion. Yes, the Republicans regularly produce misinformation. We should avoid treating them as a regular political party. Dimadick ( talk) 08:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I actually was being sarcastic, but you seem to be serious. If you think members of any political party so be given absolute trust (as I sarcastically said), that itself is a problem. We should avoid treating them as a regular political party. Maybe we should avoid treating you as a regular editor then? As much as you may not like it, they are one of two major political parties in the country. If you can't edit objectively, then don't edit at all.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 02:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I actually was being sarcastic Color me skeptical. I'm fully familiar with people misrepresenting what I say to tag me with a label and put me in box. soibangla ( talk) 02:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• The final scores of Trump and Pierce (312) being the same, why is Trump 41 and Pierce 42 (and Carter 26 to Garfield's 27, both with a score of 506)? Unless there are criteria C-SPAN hasn't mentioned, that would make Trump's ranking third-lowest. I have mixed feelings about this survey. How, for example (picked at random), is a "historian of antebellum America (1800-1860) with a particular interest in the relationship between the United States and the rest of the world in the decades before the Civil War" going to rate the economic management of presidents Reagan through Trump? As WaPo says, it was an informal survey of historians selected by C-SPAN, not a scientific poll. I'm OK with a sentence in the section on other non-scientific polls. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 11:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC) Moved to this discussion from the one above. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 11:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC) Hadn't noticed that it has been restored to the lead, so removing it for lack of consensus while the discussion is ongoing. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 11:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• Perhaps the average final score in all the categories is the tiebreaker. Trump's 31.2 just barely edges Pierce's 31.18. ValarianB ( talk) 16:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Of course [[File:|25px|link=]]. They rounded off the sum total of the 10 categories. Trump's is an even 312.0, Pierce's is 311.8. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

This recent addition to the lead was completely unacceptable and I’m glad it was removed. It put a generalized, OR comment in the lead without any supporting text in the article. Whether to report “historical rankings” has been discussed repeatedly on this page. Here was a major discussion in January of this year. There has been consensus up to now NOT to cite any of these “surveys” and such, until some time has passed since the end of his presidency and until surveys are available with a scholarly basis. Some time has now passed and we have one survey. That one is now mentioned in the “Approval ratings” section, with appropriate sourcing, so I’m OK with it. But we should expand that paragraph very sparingly and only with academic or other serious sources. We should be on guard against people trying to expand it with opinion articles or partisan material. In any case this shouldn’t go in the lead; it’s not that significant a part of the article. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

this shouldn’t go in the lead Agreed. soibangla ( talk) 01:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this on all levels. I have no problem with citing this specific survey (or secondary discussion of it), but it doesn't merit lead addition and the current amount of coverage is likely sufficient. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 01:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree with MelanieN, we need far more time to elapse before putting anything like that in lead, it has been less than a year since the end of his presidency, etc.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

But these things are not about truth or measurement on some absolute or objective scale. They are gauges of opinion as of a given time. In the case of a notable poll, the ranking may be significant and informative even with all of our doubts as to its intrinsic merit. SPECIFICO talk 16:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

We do not report polls or other measures of popular opinion for this rating. (If we did, we would probably get 50% of respondents saying he was the worst president ever and 50% saying he was the best.) For this "historical rating" we rely exclusively on evaluations by academics. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC) P.S. Here is a list of the participants in the CSPAN survey. These ratings are done by historians, not by people on the street. Those opinions are reported in the "public opinion" section, not the "historical ratings of presidents" section. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose In the lead section. It is too soon for an objective, unemotional review to be performed.-- MONGO ( talk) 15:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Since C-SPAN chose the professors the survey was sent to, I don't think we can consider the methodology sound. We don't know either what the response rate was. I notice that Sean Wilentz, who is a personal friend and political supporter of the Clintons, was polled. As I mentioned, George W. Bush's rise from 36 out of 42 in 2009 to 29 out of 44 is meteoric. Instead of being better than only 6 other presidents when he left office, he is now better than 15 others. He probably would have rated even lower when he was in office, based on Wilentz' article "George W. Bush: The Worst President in History?" about how he was viewed by historians in 2006. What happened? He's transformed from being the incumbent Republican president to being a friend of the Clintons and finally a perfect symbol of the kinder, gentler Republicans of yesteryear as opposed to Trump. It fails rs. TFD ( talk) 21:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

As TFD has pointed out, the RS would be the secondary coverage it received. SPECIFICO talk 09:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose in both the lead and body for now Obviously this info can't be in the lead if it isn't in the body (why is anyone even discussing that?), but right now it's problematic even in the body, IMO. I don't know about "objective" and "unemotional" reviews, but at some point in the future (hopefully sooner rather than later) we will have a reliable secondary source that assesses these historical surveys and allows us to say Trump has consistently been ranked as among the worst presidents in US history. without engaging in WP:SYNTH. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose it is not yet ripe to have a legacy analysis, particularly while he is threatening to run again. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard § Donald Trump's mental health. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 00:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

When I made an edit removing the words "Legal analysts said the suits have virtually no chance of success, since they are private companies with a right to moderate their platforms", with a comment attached "depends which legal analysts you ask", User:Zaathras reverted it saying "the ones who passed the Bar, perhaps?" I must say that it is quite ridiculous to assume that everyyone who passed the Bar has the same opinion. I also find it quite condescending that he thinks I know nothing about law and that I don't know any legal analysts who disagree with this statement. Also more importantly, Wikipedia should be based on fact and not conjecture by anonymous legal analysts. As such I think my edit should be restored. Anyone agree? Nerguy ( talk) 03:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

It is apparent that you did not read the source, as the passage in question is supported by the last line - Blake Reid, a clinical professor at the University of Colorado Law School, who studies the intersection of law and technology, put it another way: “The lawsuit is a legally frivolous publicity stunt that has essentially no chance of succeeding in court but a high chance of drawing a lot of attention.” Zaathras ( talk) 04:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

You say that Wikipedia should be based on fact and not conjecture by anonymous legal analysts. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources like NYT, WaPo, The Verge, Reuters, USA Today, AP, not on individual editors's personal opinions or OR. Are there any reliable, published sources that support your POV? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 05:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted this edit about a recent Trump rally. The flowery language ("Security measures included striping the attendees of items being carried: beer, folding chairs, unbrellas, and such.") is blatantly out of place in this article. I doubt we need a separate section on "post-Presidency rallies" yet, but the version being added has obvious and egregious problems beyond that. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

User:力 As noted on your talk page, I had not seen the reversal before I decided to create a new section for the rallies and changed my earlier edit in the process. So my apologies, even though not intended, it is easy to understand how you interpreted my second edit.

my intended edit is:

=== Resumption of rallies ===

On June 6, 2021, Trump resumed his campaign-style rallies with an 85-minute speech at the annual North Carolina Republican Party convention. ^{[1] [2]} On June 27, he held his first public rally since his January 6 rally before the riot at the Capitol. ^[3]

On July 3, 2021 another public rally was held in Florida. Thousands of supporters attended, some coming from great distances. Security measures included striping the attendees of items being carried: beer, folding chairs, umbrellas, and such. The audience was ushered through the building to an open-air venue behind it and directed to bleachers as seating. The audience was thoroughly drenched in a downpour that occurred. ^[4] An airplane flew a banner rally above the rally for approximately an hour that was emblazoned with "Loser-Paloosa". ^{[5] [6]}

I will wait before making another edit to the article and perhaps we may debate the need for a new section since time may prove that to be relevant. _ _ _ _ 83d40m ( talk) 22:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, although I have to admit that I enjoyed reading about the plane flying the "Loser-Palooza" banner and about the guy with the boa constrictor draped around his shoulders, charging people for selfies (the guy, not the boa). Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 05:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose NOTNEWS. There is so much other summary and analytic material that could be added relating to numerous aspects of his life before getting into his day-to-day activities. SPECIFICO talk 18:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the use of the phrase "first public rally" is confusing, as a previous rally is listed.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I made the following edit for the lead section: [4th para., 3rd sent.:] He appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court... → The Senate confirmed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court under Trump... The Senate confirmed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court under Trump...

The edit was reverted shortly thereafter by Space4Time3Continuum2x as supposedly "Not an improvement."

But of course, the President does not "appoint" justices. He submits persons for Senate confirmation to judgeship. So, my edit is an improvement.

Thomasmeeks ( talk) 16:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

The President nominates someone for a vacancy on the Court and the Senate votes to confirm the nominee. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

"Appointment" is the common usage to describe the president's role in the process. See here. SPECIFICO talk 17:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, SPECIFICO.

Thomasmeeks ( talk) 17:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, an RFC concerning the infobox, was held a few years ago & the consensus was to use "Nominated". GoodDay ( talk) 17:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

The Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution says the president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint...Judges of the Supreme Court." So it original wording represents standard speech. TFD ( talk) 17:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay Do you remember approximately when that RfC was held? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

This is rather embarrassing. There wasn't any RFC on this matter. I can only find this brief discussion, on the matter. GoodDay ( talk) 19:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Space, why did you remove Republican-controlled? It is emphasized in the article text. SPECIFICO talk 19:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

It's no different than the two impeachments. He was acquitted by the Republican-controlled Senate the first time around, and the second time around by a Republican minority large enough to prevent the necessary two-thirds majority to convict. If it were up to me, the sentence summarizing Trump's judicial appointments would just read, "Trump appointed more than 200 federal judges, including three Supreme Court justices." Why do we need to elaborate on the process of getting appointed (nomination+confirmation=appointment) in the summary of the article's most important content? If readers want to know more, they can read the body. Pew Research and Brookings, two of the three sources for the first sentence in the second paragraph of "Judiciary", use appointment and appoint throughout, the third source, the NYT, is more about the process. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Concur.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 14:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

That would be fine. Go ahead. SPECIFICO talk 17:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I did, will probably get reverted in a minute or two. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I restored the names of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett to the lead. I didn't see the removal discussed here, and I don't really see a need to be cryptic about their names. This will be part of Trump's long-term legacy, and each of the three nominations was highly controversial and significant. The names don't take up much space at all in the lead section.

As for the terminology, "appointed" is perfectly correct (and the statement that "the President does not 'appoint' justices" is just plain wrong). The Constitution says that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court." Neutrality ^talk 20:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Neutrality: the names should stay in the lead. In articles about presidents we always name the Supreme Court justices they appointed in the lead; see Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, etc. It is one of the most consequential things they do. -- MelanieN ( talk) 05:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Says who???-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@ Jack Upland: Reuters / CNN / Politico / Voice of America / Global News - just for Trump, not the other presidents starship .paint ( exalt) 12:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

User Animalparty removed this category, I restored it as it is plainly a defining characteristic of at least 1/4th of the subject's term of office, the same user reverted it again. So first off, do others feel this is a defining categorization? Second, what is the point of the "If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit" restriction if no one adheres to it, and no one is held accountable for breaking it? What is the mechanism for reporting these things, WP:AE? It happened at Talk:Joe_Biden#Trivial_details_in_the_opener recently and it is becoming frustrating. Zaathras ( talk) 03:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Zaathras, yes, AE is the proper venue for reporting a violation of the 24-hour BRD remedy. In my experience it is poorly enforced, even at AE. I support keeping the category, as it is a defining enough characteristic to make it into the lead. ―  Tartan357  ^Talk 03:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes it is a defining characteristic, he's the most famous COVID-19 conspiracy theorist on the planet. -- Tataral ( talk) 07:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Category may be deleted soon, if so this is moot. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_3#Category:COVID-19_conspiracy_theorists. starship .paint ( exalt) 09:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I would say that this is a major characteristic and stated by RS. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Two things that may be of further interest here. One user (Animalparty) is running amok across a vast swath of Wikipedia articles removing the category, and second, the category itself is up for deletion - Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_3#Category:COVID-19_conspiracy_theorists. I was only aware of this from having commented on the talk page of a related conspiracy cat once, and it was thus on the watchlist. ValarianB ( talk) 12:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@ ValarianB: Hello, I'm back from running amok in the vast swaths. You and others may be confusing verifiability with definingness, and categorizing people by recent, trivial events entirely unrelated and irrespective of their careers and notability. (note mere verifiability does not guarantee inclusion). I am following WP:COPDEF and WP:NONDEFINING, but of course not everyone may agree with me. Would you say the actor Woody Harrelson is fundamentally defined as being a 5G conspiracy theorist? --Animalparty! ( talk) 15:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure being accused (at least indirectly) for 600,000 death's is trivial. But yes, for me anyone who pushes Covid misinformation is now defined by that, the fact they are indirectly responsible for peoples deaths. However what I think is not relevant, what RS do is. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

This conversation is straying towards the scope, nature, and appropriateness of the category itself. I'll just note that misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy theories are different, even though Wikipedia treats them in the same article at COVID-19 misinformation. 16:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not engaging in your Harrelson Whataboutism. The former president was laser-focused on Covid denialism as soon as it began to spread, and ran his reelection campaign on it til the bitter end. To claim it is not a relevant categorization is just daft, bordering on disruptive. ValarianB ( talk) 19:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

With the lede as it is, and if the category survives deletion, then the category is appropriate. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree. If the category is kept - and I don't know why it wouldn't be, we have twenty or so subcategories to the parent category Conspiracy theorists, why not Covid? - then Trump belongs in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelanieN ( talk • contribs)

To call Covid conspiracy theories a major characteritic of his Presidency is ridiculous. President Trump was vaccinated against Covid. He pushed pharmaceutical companies to develop vaccines quickly.

Green Marble ( talk) 18:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Under the "Early life" section, there is the 5th sent. (right after fn. 8): " The New York Times reported in 1973 and 1976 that he had graduated first in his class at Wharton, but he had never made the school's honor roll."[fn. 9: Selk, Avi (May 20, 2018). " It's the 50th anniversary of the day Trump left college and (briefly) faced the draft". The Washington Post.]. I propose to delete that sentence, because the fn. 9 link (which anyone can click to above) does not support anything in the 5th sentence.

Thomasmeeks ( talk) 19:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

"This time, the newspaper noted that the claim contradicted university records, which showed that Trump had not even made the honor roll. The school refused to comment on his grades, as it still does now." The newspaper referenced is the New York Times. Mrytzkalmyr ( talk) 22:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

A good point all right, but there is no reference in fn. 9 to the NY Times articles, much less the 5th sentence (above), which seems to violate WP:VERIFY policy. Thomasmeeks ( talk) 23:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

You need to read the entire WaPo article. The New York Times wrote its first profile of the Trump Organization and its dozens of apartment buildings in 1973 — five years after Trump graduated, and the same year that the United States began to withdraw from Vietnam. This line somehow appeared in the story as fact: “Donald, who was graduated first in his class from the Wharton School of Finance of the University of Pennsylvania in 1968, joined his father about five years ago. He has what his father calls ‘drive.’ ” Trump was described as “first in his class” again in another Times story in 1976, after a reporter from the newspaper spent a day with the young entrepreneur — and his wool suit, and patent-leather shoes, and penthouse apartment, and family properties worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Again, and again, the phrase appeared. “Just about every profile ever written about Mr. Trump states that he graduated first in his class at Wharton in 1968,” the Times wrote when it profiled him again in 1984. This time, the newspaper noted that the claim contradicted university records, which showed that Trump had not even made the honor roll. The school refused to comment on his grades, as it still does now. Speaking to New York Magazine in 1988, Trump finally corrected the record. “Okay, maybe not ‘first,’ as myth has it,” the magazine wrote, “but he had ‘the highest grades possible.'" Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:V satisfied here. No change needed. starship .paint ( exalt) 06:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Good catch. The article now says The New York Times reported in 1973 and 1976 that he had graduated first in his class at Wharton, but he had never made the school's honor roll.[9]" I propose to replace that sentence with

For many years, profiles of Trump said he had graduated from Wharton “first in his class”, but The New York Times reported in 1984 that his graduation program did not list honors of any kind, and Trump told the paper he had never claimed any. ^[1] The university has never commented on Trump's grades. ^[2]

Sources
^ Geist, William E. (April 8, 1984). "The Expanding Empire of Donald Trump". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 July 2021. ^ Selk, Avi (May 20, 2018). "It's the 50th anniversary of the day Trump left college and (briefly) faced the draft". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 3, 2019.

Thoughts? -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Can't we just say that the information turned out to be incorrect? The rest just bloats the article and evades the question whether or not the claim was true. IIRC, the wording was a compromise when some editors said Trump lied to the NYT about his record and others said we had too little information to make that call and the compromise was to add all the facts we knew and let the reader decide. I don't even think that at this point this snippet has any weight and maybe should be deleted. I mean, it wasn't something that anyone talked about at the time. TFD ( talk) 04:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose both proposed sentences. Rather than making a good catch, the editor missed a large chunk of the source. Trump could and should have corrected the NYT's fluff pieces but didn't (and didn't admit it until years later). And Penn State never releases or comments on students/alumni's grades without their permission, and Trump very emphatically did not give his, per Michael Cohen's statement to the House Oversight & Reform Committee in February 2019, so there's no point to adding the remark about Penn not having commented. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC) The two NYT articles claiming he was first in his class: 1973, 1976, and the one correcting the reporting in 1984. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC) and Trump told the paper he had never claimed any—WP:MANDY. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC) Same sentence: It's also not what the sources say. According to WaPo, NYT, and New York Magazine ( page 35), he said “Okay, maybe not ‘first,’ as myth has it,” the magazine wrote, “but he had ‘the highest grades possible.'" Didn't mention honors. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

This is the kind of material that I believe warrants consistency across all the articles about US presidents and how they've presented their early lives and education. For example, how did we handle Joe Biden's misinformation about his schooling? Was it included in his BLP or the Presidency of? He was far more bold about his unsupported claims, and we should probably point out that the Trump campaign submitted videotapes to Poynter back in 1988, I believe. Pot and the kettle? See Politifact's article about it, and maybe it will help us find the correct balance. I'm of the mind that politicians believe they have a license to use hyperbole and conveniently misrepresent facts during elections. Is that the same as lying? Atsme 💬 📧 16:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Well then, go ahead and take it to Joe Biden. starship .paint ( exalt) 06:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Not sure education should be in the lede at all. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

That's WP standard for biographies (attended/graduated from). Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Not sure education should be in the lede at all. It's not in the lead. The lead always reports where the subject went to college, but that's all. We are talking about material in the "early life" section, where we go into their education, major, and anything else notable about their education. As for Joe Biden, that was a passing thing in 1987-88, whereas profiles of Trump said for decades that he was first in his class. It was never attributed to anyone so we don't know where the claim came from. Nobody said it came from Trump, but he never denied it either. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

OK sorry for that. As long as we do not repeat the claim we do not need to caveat it. So just remove the stuff about how well he did. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The 1973 article, which is based mostly on an interview of Fred and Donald Trump on the occasion of Fred’s "50th year in the business", appears to be the first time Trump’s "first in his class" made it into the news and then stayed there unchallenged until 1984 (and kept getting repeated despite that first challenge). Who else would have made this claim to a journalist? Reminder: At the time they also claimed to be Swedish, a falsehood that originated with Fred but Trump ran with for a few decades, including in "The Art of the Deal". "Perception is more important than reality. … don’t go out of your way to correct a false assumption if it plays to your advantage." (Ivanka Trump, "The Trump Card") It's one of several false background stories the NY press fell for. If they had reported that he graduated last in his class, he would have corrected them mighty fast or sicked Roy Cohn on them. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Get rid of it. It's just a false report that we should discard and forget about. It's not Trump's responsibility to deny every complimentary thing said about him.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I would actually be OK with removing all mention of the claim and its debunking. It probably takes more explaining than is called for. That would mean removing these two sentences: "The New York Times reported in 1973 and 1976 that he had graduated first in his class at Wharton, but he had never made the school's honor roll.[9] In 2015, Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen threatened Fordham University and the New York Military Academy with legal action if they released Trump's academic records.[10]" -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd be OK with removing the first sentence, although it could be rephrased to something like "For years, Trump did not correct erroneous press reports that he graduated first in his class." Opposed to removal of the second sentence. It's similar to Trump's refusal to release his tax returns, something the publicity hound wants to keep from the public so badly that he has his lawyer threaten his alma maters and the College Board not to release his grades which they are already forbidden to do under federal student privacy laws. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

This article should not be a list of things Trump didn't do.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 07:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not even newsworthy - get rid of it. We have more than enough trivia in this BLP. It needs more trimming, not adding to. Atsme 💬 📧 18:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could I please edit the grammar? I see many grammar mistakes. Dawn Kira ( talk) 08:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. ―  Tartan357  ^Talk 08:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Is it standard practice to mention both schools someone attended if they transferred universities? The second sentence in the Donald Trump wikipedia is that he attended Fordham. Barack Obama's contains no similar commentary, his attendance at Occidental prior to Columbia is further down the page. Is there a consistent standard here? I don't know if the school a former president attended for two years, prior to obtaining a degree elsewhere, deserves such prime placement especially since I can't see that it's done in other famous transfer students' entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.200.24 ( talk • contribs) 21:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is, hence why it’s there. Trillfendi ( talk) 22:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I suggest the wording be that Trump pressured Ukraine to ANNOUNCE an investigation of his political rival Joe Biden, since evidence shows Trump primarily was interested in a timed announcement during the campaign season, and cared little about whether or not an investigation actually happened.

Doesn't seem that way from the memo. [31] starship .paint ( exalt) 13:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Most, not just many, paragraphs repeat "Trump" or "Trump's" (repeatedly) when it's very clearly about "he and his" and no one else. I'm not Stephen Colbert and don't want to sassily pretend we're "over" that keyword, but once to start is usually enough for any subject, and in all those cases, enough's enough. I'm using a simple computer and input device, and this huge page reloads like molasses, so am merely asking for help. If you don't want to, fine. But if you do, all the quick and easy kilobyte-saving power to you! InedibleHulk ( talk) 01:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

A schema of starting each paragraph with "Trump" and then using pronouns for subsequent references sounds good to me. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 01:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I just finished watching DJT's speech on 1/6 for a 3rd time to confirm that he in fact said to "peacefully march" to the capitol. Why was this not mentioned in the article? I'd argue that is probably the most important bit of information to draw ACCURATE context regarding DJT's speech on 1/6. Without that context, the authors of this article make the assumption and give the assumption that DJT ordered the protest. Isn't that called grifting?

Direct Quote: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," ^{[1] [2]}

Jg11358 ( talk) 10:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Well also engaging in OR, the assault was not part of the march, it came after. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources tend to indicate that Trump did in fact order the protest, especially when you follow the money. –– FORMALDUDE^{( talk)} 16:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd argue that is probably the most important bit of information The reliable sources disagree. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Please WP:DENY SPA. SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Leave it out. He said "peacefully" once in his hour-long speech. He said "fight", "fight like hell", "not going to take it anymore" repeatedly. The crowd chanted "Fight for Trump" and he said "Thank you." [32] The thrust of his speech was certainly not to exhort them to act "peacefully"; it was to whip them into an anything-but-peaceful frenzy. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

MelanieN, if you think that, why do you not support including the word violently before stormed in the lead? The capital attack article clearly lays out that it was a violent riot. –– FormalDude^{( talk)} 23:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

FormalDude, keep separate discussions in separate sections please. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 23:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

They're pretty similar discussions. You really want to me instead start a new comment in the other section and link to Melanie's comment in this section? –– FormalDude^{( talk)} 23:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any connection at all. This thread is about whether to give Trump credit for having said "peacefully" once, even though he said the opposite much more often; I say no. The other thread is whether the term "violently stormed" adds anything meaningful to "stormed"; I contend it doesn't. Muboshgu had it right; let's keep discussions in their own places. And you might want to re-read Whataboutism. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks like the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has been scrubbed out of the lead. Not sure why as this was probably his biggest domestic policy legislation and is also notable for the fact that it repealed the individual mandate of the ACA. I think the previous language should be restored. Basil the Bat Lord ( talk) 02:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Without checking sources, my sense is that the details of whether tax rates are 35% or 36% or 39% is a detail that isn't relevant to history. The wider question of "what should be in the lede" is one I have been avoiding; though I repeat I don't feel you have made a compelling argument that Trump's tax bill need be in it. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Trump had little involvement in that legislation. SPECIFICO talk 03:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

That’s an absolutely laughable rational. So should the American Rescue Plan be stripped from Joe Biden’s page, or the tax cuts from George W. Bush’s article? Where’s the consistency? Davefelmer ( talk) 07:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

These arguments for exclusion don't make sense to me. The Bush tax cuts are included in Bush's lede and if nothing else the fact that the legislation repealed the individual mandate of the ACA is a major change in U.S. domestic policy which seems to warrant mention. I also don't see how the degree of involvement of the President in the legislation is relevant or not, the fact that Trump advocated for and signed the legislation during his time in office means that the bill is part of his legacy. Basil the Bat Lord ( talk) 06:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, if bush’s tax cuts are included in his article, the American Rescue Plan is included in Biden’s and Congressional bills during Obama’s presidency are included in his article, there’s no logical reason that Trump’s article should be the lone exception to not do so. Davefelmer ( talk) 07:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Didn't see this new section until after I'd added the following comment to Talk:Donald_Trump#Restructuring_the_lead, adding it here, too. The second sentence in the fourth paragraph has now been changed numerous times within the last few days, so clearly there is a need to discuss it. I just reverted it to the version that was established months ago. Trump campaigned for: he also promised to bring back manufacturing, make no cuts to Medicaid, place lifetime bans on White House officials lobbying for foreign governments and on foreign lobbyists raising money for U.S. elections, etc., and failed to deliver on them. One promise he did keep—pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement. We don't mention any of those in the lead. What makes the border wall and his failure to repeal the entire ACA more important than the other campaign promises, kept or not? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 08:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• I do think it should be kept, as a significant achievement of his presidency. Disagree? Name 10 more important achievements of his as president. Please don't cite the failures. starship .paint ( exalt) 13:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Define "important achievements" The travel ban was a major "achievement" of his presidency, and highly notable, but it was not a huge success, in fact, its significance comes from its failure, the same with the Wall. In fact, he managed to achieve many things that no other US president ever has. Being openly laughed at, being ignored and rebuffed at major international gatherings, being impeached twice. Tax cuts many presidents have done, having to push his way through a crowd to get to the front only Trump has done. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
    • @ Slatersteven: well, for important achievements, there should be legacy and impact. Failure to enact something (e.g. North Korea) leaves no legacy. Trump's supreme court justices are his legacy. So are his lower federal court judges. I'll be generous and count them separately. What are the rest that are more important than the tax cuts (which is major legislation he managed to push through)? Do you think you are being fair to Trump if every single 'achievement' ends up being negative? starship .paint ( exalt) 13:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
      • No I am looking at what he has done that no other president has for a start. Are his tax cuts in fact going to be permanent, do they mark him out as unique or different? On the other hand, his international image will be, he will be forever the president that international leaders actively ignored. Moreover, failure can leave a legacy, as the harm they do can last for years (for example his failure to win in 2020 could be his most lasting achievement, in terms of its impact on America, both in terms of changes to election laws and potential for future political unrest (as we saw on Jan 6th)). Slatersteven ( talk) 13:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• The lede is a summary of the article, not a newspaper-style leader. Do his take cuts take up a significant part of this article? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• @ Starship.paint: You've given the clincher why it should not be in the lead. This is Trump's personal biography, not the article about his presidency. Trump had little to do with the tax cuts other than to sign a veto-proof bill. This was a Republican inititative and one of several in the earlier part of his term that saw more-or-less establishment Republicans advance their longstanding agendas with Trump as the medium. SPECIFICO talk 14:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• The lead absolutely does need a sentence about the tax cuts. The sentence currently in the article is excellent and should be kept. Slatersteven is right that there wasn't much in the article about the tax cut; I have expanded it a little with a more detailed description. But this is one of the signature (no pun intended) achievements of his presidency, one that he and his supporters constantly cite as such, and it needs to be included in the lead. Whether he personally negotiated the bill is irrelevant; he signed it and that makes it his, part of the record of his presidency. BTW such a cut was also one of his major campaign promises. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• BTW such a cut was also one of his major campaign promises. - I was not aware of that nor do I recall reading it in RS. Do you have a citation calling it a major part of his campaign so as to bring us up to speed on that? SPECIFICO talk 15:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Trump promised massive middle-class tax cuts in 2016. He delivered cuts, not as much on the middle class part Promises about Taxes on Trump-O-Meter Trump touts sweeping, and costly, tax-cut plan -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Then should we not also include some of the negative commentary? Slatersteven ( talk) 15:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here's a few more: "Trump’s vows were sweeping: He said he would slash government regulation, build a wall with Mexico (and make Mexico pay for it), abolish Obamacare, rebuild manufacturing, and cut taxes for everyone." "Mr. Trump’s campaign four years ago was rooted in promises of tax cuts and the appointment of judges with conservative credentials." "Trump has kept a number of pledges, including tax cuts and conservative judges."

RE Then should we not also include some of the negative commentary? This section is about one thing: whether to mention the tax cuts in the lead. I am saying we should. Whatever "negative commentary" you want to include should be specified and discussed elsewhere. IMO there is already plenty of negative commentary in the lead. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

But do you have a source now, 5 years later, that calls this one of the big points of his campaign and that the cuts enacted match the campaign promise? We can easily find that for the "Mexico will pay for it" wall, "Muslim ban" etc. I don't know that this corporate and wealthy folks tax cut was touted by Trump in his campaign. It would seem rather contrary to his message and the preferences of his core voters. SPECIFICO talk 16:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

You're just repeating yourself while refusing to see the point at this stage. So should Biden's, Bush's and Obama's articles all be stripped of all of the congressional and judicial feats of their tenures, since none technically passed literally because of them beyond them performing the final sign off which isn't enough as you argue here? You're effectively arguing for a total overhaul of the project standard for pages of US Presidents, or simply asking for a specific exception for Trump to simply strip his page of the legislative feats of his tenure while keeping it for everyone else. I'm inclined to believe you'll get neither, unless there's an appetite for overhauling each President's page and removing all the congressional feats of their tenures but I haven't seen that. Davefelmer ( talk) 01:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Obamacare is so-named due to his personal involvement. The two Iraq wars were approved due to the intense efforts of the two Bush's. You are arguing from a false and ignorant premise. SPECIFICO talk 01:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

And the TCJA is literally often referred to as the Trump Tax Cut or the Trump Tax Plan. ^{[1] [2] [3]} Same principle as with Obamacare. And what is ‘intense efforts’ here? According to who? Many sources say Cheney was the bigger influence and supporter of the war, and it’s not like it has his name stamped on it like Obamacare and the Trump Tax Cuts etc so what’s the standard? Just make it up as we go? Davefelmer ( talk) 03:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Sources
^ https://www.investopedia.com/taxes/trumps-tax-reform-plan-explained/ ^ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-27/the-trump-tax-cut-wasn-t-just-for-the-rich ^ https://www.npr.org/2019/12/20/789540931/2-years-later-trump-tax-cuts-have-failed-to-deliver-on-gops-promises

If it truly were comparable to Obamacare, there would be a similar amount of coverage, but there is not. –– FORMALDUDE^{( talk)} 06:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

What difference does that make? It’s not some misguided competition here, the point is that both are so closely associated with the President that signed them that they are often referred to as titles that bear their names. It’s irrelevant to what extent relative to each other, the point is that sources exist for both. But if this is your standard then we can start discussing instead whether for example the American Rescue Plan should remain in Biden’s Article, or the wars under Bush in his. Neither bare the President’s name nor are referred to as being specifically associated with them. Nobody calls the ARP the Biden Rescue Plan or something, so all of those should be removed then? Since that’s the standard you seem to want to set. Davefelmer ( talk) 13:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Well the difference that makes is that significant coverage is one of main factors for determining the notability of something here on Wikipedia. –– FORMALDUDE^{( talk)} 15:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

OK but it does still have significant coverage, just maybe not quite as much coverage as Obama did with the ACA. But there's no standard based on Obama so that's totally irrelevant and a multitude of sources still list the TCJA as a project bearing Trump's name which is more than enough. Davefelmer ( talk) 22:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the coverage is significant enough to warrant inclusion in the lede section. –– FormalDude ^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 22:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I do. Besides, if numerous sources describing the bill as literally bearing his name isn't enough, what is enough? What's the standard? Davefelmer ( talk) 22:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources is the standard. In this case, I do not see that for the claim that tax cuts were a central part of his campaign promises.

And do you know how many bills bear politicians' names? That doesn't automatically make the policy notable or relevant to them. –– FormalDude ^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 22:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Dude I literally listed multiple RS above that cover it while bearing his name in the title of the bill. Did you miss that part? And we were talking about that being a standard of notability as an initial basis of this conversation. You're just moving the goalposts as much as you can. Davefelmer ( talk) 00:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Davefelmer, those sources do not support the claim that it was a central part of Trump's presidential campaign. They're all after the fact. –– FormalDude ^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 01:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO is exactly right. Those sources do not indicate in any way that tax cuts were ever a major part of Trump's campaign or administration. Not that that would be a good enough reason to include it in the lede of the article anyways. –– FORMALDUDE^{( talk)} 02:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't necessarily argue that the Tax Cuts should be removed, though I am the one that did it per previous Talk (the notion that if one wants to add something to the lead, something should be removed to keep it short; trying to keep things short). But one need only look at the two related articles on the Trump Wall and the Tax Cuts to assess Trump's involvement in either - extensive in the first, very little in the second; the Wall issue led to a massive government shutdown and a declaration of a national emergency. I come from the perspective that we have had endless arguments that something in the lead that is not directly Trump related should be in the Presidential article; so it should be removed. So many things have been removed for this rationale. But here people are strongly pushing back RE the Tax Cuts. Is the policy that something not directly Trump related should be in the Presidential article, unless it is important to his Presidency? I earlier had in mind adding the sentence like "The individual mandate of the ACA was later rescinded by the passage of the 2017 Tax Cut." - with such a sentence, we can have our cake and eat it too; that is, these things can be mentioned, while avoiding the issue of Trump's involvement. But think carefully how this is decided - What goes in the Presidential article, what goes in this biography? (and I tried very hard to have the Presidential article more apparent in the article, so that people would be more receptive to adding material there rather than here!) It is good, in any case, that the Tax Cut discussion has been strengthened. Bdushaw ( talk) 04:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

PS - One issue I had with the present sentence was the phrasing "which cut taxes for individuals and businesses"; while true, the selection of this phrasing and omission of the many other consequences of the bill is a POV. It also greatly increased the deficit, etc, etc. Besides, it is called a "Tax Cut" bill so is not that phrasing redundant? Bdushaw ( talk) 04:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• I think a mention of tax cuts should be restored, whether the original wording is kept or not I'm open minded about. MelanieN has best expressed my view on this. I've often heard tax cuts cited by Trump's supporters as his key domestic policy (and even by those who have said they don't support him, but say they supported "his policies"). I think the selection of sources presented by MelanieN evidences my impressions. Jr8825 • Talk 10:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  I haven't seen any sources that suggest it was his key domestic policy, which ones are you referring to Jr8825? –– FormalDude ^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 22:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  But you are assuming the consequent. What RS calls it his policy. Quite the opposite. This was a Republican establishment priority and was passed when Trump was still following mainstream Republican advisors and initiatives. SPECIFICO talk 23:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• As noted by MelanieN, Tax cuts is certainly worth noting in the lead and as fine as is.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The article currently has a case where more detail is provided in the section heading than in the section prose. That would appear to be backwards. Please change the heading "2021 storming of the United States Capitol" to "2021 storming of the Capitol", then change the prose "taking place in the Capitol" to "taking place in the U.S. Capitol". You might also wikilink that occurrence of U.S. Capitol, for readers who don't know what the Capitol is, or don't know the difference between a capitol and a capital. Thank you. 68.97.42.64 ( talk) 23:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: Changed section title and specified that is was the United States Capitol. Did not add wikilink to the U.S. capitol as that wikilink already exists in the lede section (see MOS:OL). –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 23:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)