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.

So there has been some back and forth about the link in the lead to the 2021 United States Capitol attack with it going back and forth between "hundreds stormed" and "hundreds violently stormed". The long standing is without the stormed violently. Brain fart. PackMecEng ( talk) 21:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

It looks like it was first added by Thomascampbell123 June 30th [1], then reverted by Rusf10 the same day [2], then that was reverted by SPECIFICO the same day again [3], followed by a partial revert by Spy-cicle on July 2nd [4]. Later it was added again by The One I Left July 9th [5], which Spy-cicle reverted on the 14th [6], next SPECIFICO quickly reverted the same day [7], and finally I went back to status quo today [8].

So what do we want to do? PackMecEng ( talk) 01:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

To be frank, I dont like "stormed". Let's say violently breached security. SPECIFICO talk 02:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

As referenced in 2021 United States Capitol attack, Shortly after 1 p.m. ET Wednesday hundreds of pro-Trump protesters pushed through barriers set up along the perimeter of the Capitol, where they tussled with officers in full riot gear, some calling the officers "traitors" for doing their jobs. [9] The bodycam videos [10]] tell the story; pay particular attention to the audio. soibangla ( talk) 02:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Tussle with sounds like they messed up their hair. Better: "attacked". SPECIFICO talk 03:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I second an objection to "stormed," now that it is mentioned. It does not convey the horror of what happened to a modern reader. "violently overran security"? "Violently" seems to describe what happened best. "battled the Capitol police before entered the Capitol"? "tussled" is ridiculous. Bdushaw ( talk) 06:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

"Stormed" is what they did. "Violently stormed" is a tautology.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 03:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Jack and Spy-cicle Please consult a dictionary regarding the meaning of "tautology". SPECIFICO talk 00:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, "violently stormed" is redundant. "stormed" is the wrong word, however. Bdushaw ( talk) 06:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Rioted and stormed. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Better, but we need to convey that they personally attacked police and broke through doors and windows and barricafes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO ( talk • contribs) 11:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

No, we don't. That kind of detail is conveyed in the article text. We are talking about the lead section here - where we summarize in a few words what is spelled out in more detail in the article. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that the brilliant group of editors here can accomplish both brevity and the full meaning I suggested. I don't think "stormed" is a common usage that most readers would understand. Before editing articles about Jan 6, I can't recall when I previously saw "stormed". Maybe 10th grade history class RE: the Bastille. SPECIFICO talk 00:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Stormed is the normal word for taking over a building in the way they did.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 10:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The reason I reverted is because as Jack Upland points out "violently stormed" is tautology equivalent to "armed gunman". It may be worth waiting to find a result of the move review for 2021 United States Capitol attack. I think "attack" by itself is too imprecise (you can attack a building without actually getting in, i.e. using projectiles). Perhaps "attacked and stormed"? Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I think plain "stormed" - without "violently", without "attacked" - is appropriate. It defines exactly what they did with a minimum of verbiage. Particularly important in the lead section. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

BTW PackMecEng, you said The long standing is without the stormed. What you meant to say was "The long standing is without the violently". It used to just say "stormed". -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

MelanieN, You are absolutely correct. Stormed was the long standing, I meant to write without violently. I will strike and fix. PackMecEng ( talk) 21:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I would just like to add I think without adding the “violently” you don’t get a proper sense of what took place. It was a violent attack, and stormed doesn’t have that sense of danger to it necessarily. I don’t see any harm in adding “violently” as it accurately describes the event. The One I Left ( talk) 23:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

You don't feel that "stormed" conveys a sense of danger? Odd.-- Khajidha ( talk) 23:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

When I think of stormed, I think breached. People can break through a crowd but that doesn't really convey the danger and the violence we saw on January 6. The One I Left ( talk) 00:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree. The champ stormed through his Wheaties and strode confidently out to the first tee. SPECIFICO talk 00:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

When I insulted the lady, she stormed out of the bar. I think technically "stormed" refers to a violent taking of something, but as a practical matter today, it, to me, lacks the appropriate sense to convey the violence of having a fire extinguisher thrown at the Capitol police. Bdushaw ( talk) 00:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Those examples are using a different definition of stormed. They don't have a target and often convey a movement away ("stormed out of the bar"). This usage of "stormed" always has a target and implies a violent incursion ("storming the Bastille"). I am legitimately surprised that anyone would confuse the two. -- Khajidha ( talk) 01:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

It is my sense that most Americans would not immediately perceive the violence inherent in "storm", as you mean it. The word is too quaint and not that common. I am in favor of something more descriptive such as "after a violent melee with the Capitol police, the mob broke into the Capitol". Bdushaw ( talk) 01:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

You don't think Americans know about "storming the beaches of Normandy"? That and the Bastille are the preeminent uses of "stormed"/"storming" and are definitely cases of extreme violence. -- Khajidha ( talk) 13:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

("melee" may not be that common either...) Really the incident consisted of two phases - the violence of the attack on the Capitol police, followed by the break into the Capitol. To use "storm" could also mean that mild force was used to enter the Capitol, but not much else happened...like a group of tourists who ignore the advice of the local security and cross a barrier. It was incredibly violent, and I'd be in favor of mentioning the Capitol police as the Capitol defenders. Bdushaw ( talk) 01:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Definition #1 of "stormed" as a transitive verb: "to use force to enter a place and take control of it." e.g. "The police stormed the building and arrested 12 men." "The city was stormed by rebel forces." [11]

Definition #2 of "stormed" as a verb: "storm (of troops): suddenly attack and capture (a building or other place) by means of force." e.g. "commandos stormed a hijacked plane early today" [12]

Definition #6 of "stormed" as a noun: "a violent assault on a defended position" [13]

Storm (verb): "to suddenly attack a place". [14] -- MelanieN ( talk) 03:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I dont think anyone questions the definition. It's that this word is not commonly used and is obscure to many or most readers. SPECIFICO talk 03:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

1/6 was an uncommon event. The term "to storm" is a metaphor. Every reader knows that a storm is a violent disturbance of the atmosphere with wind and rain, fire and lightening. So they know what it means to storm a building even if they had not heard the term before. TFD ( talk) 04:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

There was nothing resembling wind, water or fire damage, though. You could argue it was "shocking". But the real electrical power didn't get knocked out, so it seems like a stretch, even poetically. More a "crashing", partywise or "smash and grab", crimewise. But they're not contenders. InedibleHulk ( talk) 02:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

"Violently stormed" is redundant - you can't storm something non-violently. (Another editor referred to this a tautology. Instead of quibbling about semantics, editors should accept this is what they meant.) Another editor mentioned "the horror" of the attack. Well it's not up there with the storming of the presidential palace in Haiti, the events of 9/11, the assassination of JFK, the attack on Pearl Harbor or the storming of Versailles. We don't have to tell readers what to think, just explain what happened. TFD ( talk) 04:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

yep. Explain it in words they'll all understand. So don't get rid of violently. Get rid of stormed. SPECIFICO talk 12:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

TFD, in your own words, what do you find RS describe as having happened? SPECIFICO talk 13:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

you can't storm something non-violently. Have you ever seen a Black Friday stampede for a discounted waffle-iron? Certainly could stay they are "storming" the store, but, not with the intent to commit violence. ValarianB ( talk) 12:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

That may not have been their intent but the outcome was that a Walmart employee was trampled to death: shoppers stormed a Wal-Mart. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I vaguely recall having removed the addition of "violently" a couple of times as redundant. Looks like the discussion that moved "2021 storming of the United States Capitol" to 2021 United States Capitol attack has now moved here with similar arguments. The transitive verb to storm requires a direct object (beaches of Normandy (i.e., good), U.S. embassy in Teheran (bad), Bastille (good)), the intransitive verb does not (stormed out of the meeting, stormed into the store), but both indicate violence, whether it is directed at a direct object or not. There is no other verb, IMO, that expresses the events better. The mob violently physically attacked, breached and entered. "Attack" could mean a verbal altercation. The "uncommon" argument: well, how often has the storming of s.th. happened in the U.S. since Union troops stormed Lookout Mountain in 1863? Some editors argued that you can't use the verb because the far-right likes and uses it, while others argued that the verb romanticizes what happened. Sometimes a verb is just a verb, and this one is short and to-the-point. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I won't argue against "stormed", but do note that celebrities can storm the stage, and fans can storm the field without necessarily hurting anyone or even damaging property, just by moving fast to where they're not supposed to be. Thus I understand the addition of "violently" and don't think it's a clear tautology. --- Sluzzelin talk 13:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

If there is any doubt, it does link to the main article 2021 United States Capitol attack and that should alleviate any concern. PackMecEng ( talk) 13:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

That lead has, curiously, stormed during a riot and violent attack... if "stormed" is so clear...why the extra phrasing... Bdushaw ( talk) 19:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just wanted to acknowledge modern-everyday parlance where the transitive verb 'to storm [something]' need not include physical violence. --- Sluzzelin talk 13:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

And I just want you to know that rushing a stage, field or other open space sounds more natural, with or without bloodshed. InedibleHulk ( talk) 20:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

As a non-native speaker, I thank you for that insight! The article on pitch invasion certainly doesn't reflect this preference. --- Sluzzelin talk 20:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia suggests a lot of things are more normal than they are. To be fair, though, "storming the field" isn't a complete fabrication. Just a phrase less employed. InedibleHulk ( talk) 21:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Turns out an editor or two had courts confused with fields, fixed now, point to you for the assist. InedibleHulk ( talk) 21:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• Just "stormed," without "violently," is the way to go. It's a dictionary word. It's not marked archaic or obsolete. Arguments that Americans (or anyone) won't know that "storming" a building involves violence are unconvincing to me because these arguments are unevidenced and contradicted by the dictionaries, by searching GNews, GBooks or GScholar for "stormed the," and by the fact that like almost every single English-speaking news outlet in America and the world used the word "stormed" to describe the attack. They wouldn't have used the word if it was unfamiliar or confusing or inaccurate. Follow the sources as always. (Not our own assumptions/beliefs about what other people do or do not know.) Levivich 13:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Stormed is used overwhelming often by the sources. Almost all of these sources also describe the violence in the storming, so it makes perfect sense to say violently stormed. –– FORMALDUDE^{( talk)} 20:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• By the way, I have been informed previously that there is no Wikipedia policy which says we should use the same words as the sources. Can someone please correct me if this isn't true, because this line of argument comes up a lot? Thanks.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 20:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  Jack Upland, yes you're technically right. I would say this is essentially the policy on it: Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing#How_to_write_acceptable_content. –– FormalDude ^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 01:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  Is there any other kind of right? By the way, I believe that "stormed" is the mot juste. The storming of the Capitol in Washuington DC will rank with the storming of the Bastille, the Gordon Riots, and the Battle of Brisbane... or I'm a Dutchman.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 19:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• The issue is this: Do you believe that all of our readers will understand "storm" to mean violently attack and breach, or does the use of that $6 word risk misunderstanding by up to half our readers? I am confident half of our readers cannot tell you anything about the Gordon Rots or Brisbane, and a non-neglible if smaller number have never heard of your Bastille thing. SPECIFICO talk 20:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  Precisely. That's why I support violently stormed. –– FormalDude ^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 21:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

FormalDude, above you said that "Stormed is used overwhelming often by the sources." And that the sources also describe the violence. Did you see any sources - any at all - that said "violently stormed"? Because I don't think that phrase is at all a common usage. I think it is something that we would be making up. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

MelanieN: Because the sources describe the event as a storming and also as violent, I do not think it is anything close to WP:OR or WP:SYNTH to say "violently stormed". As mentioned above, there is no Wikipedia policy which says we should use the exact same words as the sources. Striked: not my place to preach policy to an admin. "Violently stormed" is an accurate summary of how the sources describe it, even if it may not be verbatim. And equally important it is an accurate summary of how the text in the article describes it, which the lede obviously should be representative of. –– FormalDude ^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 21:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

MelanieN: I am familiar with whataboutism, and I do not think pointing out a perceived contradiction in your opinion is in any way whataboutism. If you clearly agree RS show that the protest was violent (which I infer from your other comment agreeing that Trump partly incited the violence) then it doesn't make sense for you to support wording that doesn't make clear that the event was violent.

I think your stance is that the word "stormed" implies violence and is therefore sufficient–is that right? If so I'd just encourage you to look at the worldview of the word stormed and some of it's multiple definitions, because that is what lead me to the conclusion that stormed is not inherently violent. My stance is because of that, we should clarify it with the qualifier "violently". –– FormalDude^{( talk)} 23:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Having simmered about this for a while now, I am in favor of a two-part text like: attacked the police and stormed the Capitol. The event did occur in these two phases, with the initial attack being at the police barricades. I have a great deal of sympathy for the Capitol police (c.f. hearings yesterday) and feel their role should be acknowledged. I understand "stormed" but it is too neat and antiseptic to describe the violence that occurred. Bdushaw ( talk) 21:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Since we're talking about the lede summary, I think a statement like "... which hundreds stormed in frenzied rage." would adequately described the horrid event without the redundancy associated with using "violently stormed". The section, however, begs for some seriously artful prose lest a whitewashing of the event is the desired end.-- John Cline ( talk) 17:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Not a subscriber to the "normal tourist visit" rewrite of history, I see. Frenzied rage is an apt description for the mob's actions during the battle on the west terrace but that was the one place where the mob didn't gain entrance to the building. I don't see this battle mentioned in the main article, although they do have an image of Officer Hodges being attacked in the doorway. I think that article would be the appropriate place rather than this one which is more about Trump's involvement. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Aside the warm welcome, your rebuttal is well informed and otherwise: well received.-- John Cline ( talk) 19:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

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

change "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021." to "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." to make it consistent with entries for other US presidents. 2604:2D80:A282:1300:3450:CE67:FA2:EBB9 ( talk) 16:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Please read all this talk page discussion about this. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The previous page move was overturned after the move review. If you want to participate in the new move request, go to Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol#Requested_move_2_August_2021. (Probably not the right way for a move notification.) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 08:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

www.donaldjtrump.com (a.k.a. save america) should be listed among the official websites. He has been and is currently using it to issue his "official statements". At this time, he seems to be using it more then his "office" website. Currently, the last statement on his "office" website was posted on July 30th (see here), while the last statement he posted on his "donaldjtrump" site was August 2nd (see here). I had tried to add it to the list but my edit was reverted by another editor because it's slready in the "external links" section. It would seem more appropriate to include it with the websites in the infobox and I would like to see if we can get a consensus on this-- Steamboat2020 ( talk) 22:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

ping: User:Space4Time3Continuum2x-- Steamboat2020 ( talk) 22:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Trump changed the location of his blog/statement/news site at least once before. Despite its URL, donaldjtrump.com isn't Trump's website, it's the PAC's. I checked the infoboxes of various other former presidents and current politicians and have yet to find a single one that lists their PAC(s), not even in the "external links" section. 45office.com appears to be his official post-presidential website. There have been three previous discussions of this matter recently, April–May, May, June. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 05:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@ Space4Time3Continuum2x#1.) You are correct that Trump has changed the location of his blog/statement/news site at least once before which is why the previous discussions may not reflect the current reality. #2.) You can't compare Trump to other former presidents. He is the first former president since the web was invented who is "unofficialy" (due to campain finance laws) running again for president. #3.) He can't set up his official campaign site as long as he doesnt officialy declare his candidacy so he has to set that site up as a PAC website but the reality is that he is using it as his official campain website. I have never seen a PAC website being used in this manner. The reality is that this website is "currently" functioning as his primary campain website and in my opinion the wikipedia article should reflect that reality-- Steamboat2020 ( talk) 19:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The fact that it is his official campaign (with a g) website is all the more reason not to use it. The Wikipedia is not an advertising platform for political candidacies. Zaathras ( talk) 22:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Official campaign is not an uncommon WP:ELOFFICIAL for a politician. WP:OTHER sure, but see Joe Biden. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

We actually do have the direct link to Trump's blog on the PAC website (bypassing the shop:). The website is paid for by the Joint Fundraising Committee of two PACs, the Make America Great Again PAC (a "single-candidate super PAC in support of Donald Trump" which must do any political spending independently of the campaign) and the Save America PAC (a "Leadership PAC affiliated with President Donald J Trump" which may fund travel, administrative expenses, consultants, polling, and other non-campaign expenses). Neither one is a campaign website because—as you said—there is no campaign. How does linking to the website of the Joint Fundraising Committee reflect that he appears to be hinting at possibly contemplating running again in 2024? As far as I can tell, he's just continuing the grift, at one or two steps removed but very lucratively. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 10:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Category:Cultural depictions of Donald Trump is a sub-category of Category:Donald Trump in popular culture. Shouldn't it logically be the other way around? And would it be a good idea to merge the categories? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Should not be the other way around, "depictions" should only include the parodies, cartoons, mentions, etc. created by other people, not appearances or content created by the man himself. Although, if depictions is a tiny category, I would understand merging it with the larger (more general) "Trump in popular culture" category. - Adolphus79 ( talk) 17:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

There are some inconsistencies in the article regarding punctuation around quotes. Made up examples:

1. Trump was a "president", said .... (incorrect punctuation) 2. Trump was a "president," said .... (correct punctuation)

Likewise with periods instead of commas. Could someone with the power of editing the article fix this?

The first one is correct per MOS:LQ. Where is there an inconsistency? ―  Tartan357  ^Talk 06:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I see that the subject of his hair has been discussed many times, but I haven't found a good argument for why there is no mention of Trump's hair, something he is most famous for. I suggest we add a "Personal image" subsection under Public profile. We could add a line something like: In 2004, the Chicago Tribune wrote that Trump is known for his "unusual mane of copper hair", ^[1] or something else from Public image of Donald Trump#Hair Kolya Butternut ( talk) 21:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Leave it out. There is already plenty about the subject at the public image article, to which Donald Trump's hair redirects, so the material is easy to find if people want it. We rarely comment on people's personal appearance in their biography. In fact judging people by their appearance, or making a big deal about it, is something I thought we left behind in the last century. We don't have anything in the 'pedia about Barack Obama's ears, although there is plenty of commentary about it online, or about Hillary Clinton's hairstyles which also have a lot of information if you Google it. For that matter, if we mention the "mane of copper hair" we would have to deal with the claims that he is bald under a combover, or the observation that his hair is orange one day, white the next. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

There is already plenty about the subject at the public image article...last century. These aren't policy reasons?

We don't have anything in the 'pedia about Barack Obama's ears...a lot of information if you Google it. The DUEness is incomparable. [15]

[I]f we mention the "mane of copper hair" we would have to deal with the claims that he is bald under a combover.... That might be undue, but if due, so what?

The fact is, Donald Trump's image IS his hair. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 06:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The hair doesn’t define him, it’s a distraction and a way to stay in the news. (Also, this is a mane. If Trump had one, he wouldn’t need that elaborate comb-over.) most famous for - more famous than for having been president, having been impeached twice, or having incited an insurrection? Agree with MelanieN, we shouldn't judge people by their appearance, and the fact that Trump mocks people for their appearance all the time is a clear indication that it is wrong. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I've been mildly supportive of inclusion before, though I am on the fence about it really. I write merely to note that while Obama could not do anything about his ears, Trump has gone to great lengths to construct his...gold hairstack? Its something he has worked on and that is important to him for his image. Perhaps one could write a brief description of his attention to personal details generally (in "Public profile"), briefly mentioning the hair as an example among others? Bdushaw ( talk) 06:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Given the fact that there is another article, and given the fact that this article is way oversized, and given the fact that nothing important follows from Trump's hair (as far as I can tell), I would say it definitely should not be included.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Could we analyze policy? When an article is WP:TOOBIG, we decide what stays and what goes based on WP:WEIGHT. So if Trump's hair is one of the most WP:NOTEWORTHY things about him, then it should be included over other content, correct? For example, we could remove In Gallup's annual poll asking Americans to name the man they admire the most.... Kolya Butternut ( talk) 14:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

 if Trump's hair is one of the most WP:NOTEWORTHY things about him, then it should be included over other content, correct? False premise. Trump’s hair is by no means one of the most noteworthy things about him. Trump has been in the public eye for many decades - has worked hard to make sure he is. His business deals, his TV presence, and ultimately his political career including four years as president and his current campaign to stay in the news - all of this is what makes him a household name around the world. To claim that his hair is "something he is most famous for" is laughable; his hair is a trivial side issue. Is Queen Elizabeth most famous for wearing hats? So yes, let's analyze policy. As noted above, this article is very, very long, so per Wikipedia practice we spin off these less important details into daughter articles. That is what we have done with his hair, which is rightly relegated to the “public image” article. -- MelanieN ( talk) 14:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

its trivial nonsense. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Trump's (or Don King's or Rod Blagojevich's) hair is well-known, because it is mocked or highlighted in caricatures and comedy, just like other non-average aspects of physical appearance among famous people. Not the same thing as being noteworthy by an encyclopedia's standards. I agree with MelanieN that the premise of noteworthiness is false, and I don't think this article should write about his hair. --- Sluzzelin talk 15:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so I will take the answer of "if Trump's hair is one of the most WP:NOTEWORTHY things about him, then it should be included over other content, correct?" to be "yes". How do we determine whether this is DUE for his public profile/image section? Kolya Butternut ( talk) 15:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

No, because I'd phrase it "if Trump's hair is one of the most WP:NOTEWORTHY things about him, then it should be included over content that is not as noteworthy". That would be correct, in my opinion. --- Sluzzelin talk 15:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

How do you get "I will take the answer...to be yes", when three replies said this shouldn't be included? The question here is not "Should the most noteworthy things about a person be included?" Of course they should. The question here is, "Is his hair one of those most noteworthy things about him?" And the answer here is a resounding no. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:25, 12 July 2021

Huh? by no means means yes? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Sluzzelin, I think we're on the same page. Now let's evaluate how noteworthy his hair is. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 15:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

"Now" let's evaluate how noteworthy his hair is? That's what we've been doing all along. Just read the discussion, please; that's how such questions are decided here. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Note, noteworthy and well known do not mean the same thing. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not communicating well. I hear that folks are saying that his hair is not noteworthy, but I don't know what that opinion is based on. What I would like to do is evaluate the sources, and figure out where to look. I'm not sure how to best measure the DUEness. We could look at how many hits "Donald Trump's hair" gets on Google, we could look at articles about his image, and we could look at whole biographies, etc. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 18:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

What does it tell us about him? What does it tell us we need to know and do not already say? Slatersteven ( talk) 18:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking, but I'll try to start doing some research about his public image:

"One of the most noticeable things about Donald Trump is his unique mane of longish “golden” hair." [16] Kolya Butternut ( talk) 18:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

What I am asking is what does this tell us, that we do not already say. We can see what he looks like, we have pictures. So why do we need to mention his hair? If we leave this out will the reader be going "I did not think this was about Donald "the Hair" Trump but the other Donald Trump not famous for his hair"? Slatersteven ( talk) 18:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I see. We wouldn't be including it to educate readers about what his hair looks like; it's to tell readers that he is known for his hair. Still researching:

"The Art of the Hair", chapter from Trump's book, How to Get Rich. [17] Kolya Butternut ( talk) 18:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't devote a single paragraph to Trump's hair, because (in any event without embedment in relevant context) it tells us nothing about who he was & is, what he did & does, why he's important, etc. I won't oppose including commentary on his hair in an image caption (preferably à la punny The Economist, and not à la Vanity Fair's "his hair breaks over his collar like a viscous, bird-killing oil slick" (1999)). I won't oppose mentioning it within the body of text, where due and appropriate regarding that context. But it's really not worth mentioning per se. --- Sluzzelin talk 22:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion at this point about how much is said, but I feel strongly that we should at least mention his hair. I see very little in the article about his image except where he is described as "an emblem of the successful tycoon" at Donald Trump#Books. I think we need just a couple sentences from the beginning of Public image of Donald Trump. Maybe something about the image he's had as a playboy, as a symbol of aspirational wealth, and his brashness. We could mention his hair there. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 22:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I think this image and similar caption would be great, if there is space:

Kolya Butternut ( talk) 23:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Seems to me it is not his hair, per se, that is the principal issue, but rather his vanity. Of which his hair, facial make up, giant gold lettering on his buildings, etc etc are examples. Other examples are that he never apologies or admits that he is wrong (cf the nutty hurricane in Arkansas "scandal"). The article does not describe this vanity, which is an important element of his biography. This to argue for a brief new subsection in Public profile on vanity, in which hair might be mentioned. It is off-track to be arguing over hair... Bdushaw ( talk) 01:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Vanity isn't a matter of public perception, it's a personality trait. We've had several discussions about including Trump's mental—uh,issues—in the health section, and the consensus was not to include remote diagnoses of any kind by experts and non-experts alike. IMO it stands to reason that Trump has daddy issues. He's obsequious towards "strongmen" like Putin and Erdogan and demands obsequiousness from everyone else, for example from governors wanting federal assistance during the COVID-19 crisis. (BUT—remote diagnosis!) Hair, whatever that substance is he slathers on his face, length of ties, ill-fitting pants, toilet paper stuck under his shoe, being unable to close an umbrella, etc, those are all subjects for cartoons, talk shows, and providing color for newspaper articles, but they're not encyclopedic. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 08:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  I find it funny that he has that much money, but can't dress and groom himself worth a damn. -- Khajidha ( talk) 17:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how we decide what is encyclopedic other than what the RS say, and we do cover the subjects of cartoons. See Richard Nixon, a featured article: "Editorial cartoonists and comedians often exaggerated his appearance and mannerisms.... He was often portrayed with unshaven jowls, slumped shoulders, and a furrowed, sweaty brow." [18] More featured articles which mention appearances:

  • Michael Jackson's "skin had been medium-brown during his youth, but from the mid-1980s gradually grew paler...Jackson said he had had two rhinoplasty surgeries and a cleft chin surgery". [19]
  • Angelina Jolie's "most recognizable physical features are her many tattoos, eyes, and in particular her full lips." [20]
  • Marilyn Monroe's "screen persona focused on her blonde hair". [21] Kolya Butternut ( talk) 17:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• This is absolutely subarticle content. ~ HAL 333 23:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
• This article is too big for trivial things of this nature Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 07:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• Unpopular opinion I actually think his hair is notable enough for a sentence. It's obviously important to Trump, considering he took $70,000 in (probably illegal) tax deductions for hair care per The New York Times. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 08:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• I think that was reported in ES wrt the context of tax-minimisation, legal or otherwise, rather than in the context of its pretext, to wit, hair. SPECIFICO talk 14:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Why no public image section?

Maybe I should back up. There isn't really any information on Trump's public image, just his public profile. Shouldn't we say something about his image as we do for other politicians, such as:

• Barack Obama#Cultural and political image
• George W. Bush#Cultural and political image
• Hillary Clinton#Cultural and political image
• Bill Clinton#Public image

Kolya Butternut ( talk) 20:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

How is this proposed "public image" material different from/not covered by the existing public profile section?-- Khajidha ( talk) 14:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The existing section discusses what he does, whereas a typical public image section will discuss image, personality, and how he is viewed. This content can be found at the beginning of Public image of Donald Trump. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 16:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The entire article reflects the way he's most commonly portrayed, in so many aspects. Same as in those other presidents' articles, and same as in Hillary's. All very different people, but all projected to us (readers and editors) by the same sources, deep down. InedibleHulk ( talk) 02:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

His image is essential to his brand. The article doesn't even say what his brand represents. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 05:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Making America Great Again is (said to be) basically about reinforcing nationalism, nepotism, isolationism, capitalism, racism, sexism and fascism. Lying has something to do with it, but nobody is sure how because there are lies about that. Physically, the image is even simpler, the camera has no reason to lie. InedibleHulk ( talk) 00:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

His brand existed before "Make American great again". Kolya Butternut ( talk) 17:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

If you mean the "Trump" covered in Business and Media career, it was emblematic of opulence, aspiration and tycoonery, like Mr. Burns (and the early 20th-century callbacks therein). InedibleHulk ( talk) 00:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Right, and we don't mention that that's his brand, and we don't talk about that in his public profile section. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 00:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Correct. There is no public profile section because we "talk about that" in his Business and Media career. There's a Branding and licensing subsection (with a spacious main article) and a direct quote from The New Yorker about his "emblem". I didn't invent the above, just paraphrased. Is there something to his outward gimmick not already addressed somewhere in the article? InedibleHulk ( talk) 00:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Trump's career is based on his brand and image, yet from this article it is not clear what that brand is. The text from the Book subsection is out of context; no connection is made to his brand. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 02:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

It is everything we say it is. If it wasn't, then why would we say it is? In the papers, the news, every day it is. I think we'll leave it just the way it is. InedibleHulk ( talk) 02:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

This article has some problems I have found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WinnipegMA ( talk • contribs) 22:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@ WinnipegMA: Feel free to share what they are... –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 00:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

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

This Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. should be changed to Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality, politician and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. as right now it sounds like a Democratic Party PR firm or another anti Trump PR firm writen that part of the article as they seem to assume that Donald Trump was not a politician when a president is a politician 71.169.164.254 ( talk) 10:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Please read all the talk page discussions about this issue. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{ edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 10:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

The sentence on Trump's attempts to build a border wall and attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act has been scrubbed from the lead. I propose the sentence: Trump campaigned for repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and for building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border to control immigration, but repeal of ACA did not pass the Senate and Congress did not allocate funds for building the wall. be added to the lead, just prior to the Tax Cut sentence being discussed above. The rationale is that these were Trump's signature issues, he campaigned on them endlessly during the campaign. The article supports the addition of such a sentence, since these issues are mentioned in several places - the campaign, actions on day one of presidency, and regular subsections on them. The article Trump wall describes Trump's actions for the wall, which involved Trump shutting down the government over funding and him declaring a national emergency to find funds for it. Actions to repeal of the ACA led to the individual mandate removed in the Tax bill, and this occurred prior to the pandemic; actions to undermine the ACA. The proposed sentence is short and simple on purpose; I believe it is correct (recent attempts to elaborate on it were not helpful). These two issues are so obvious, I am baffled why there are objections; this is a biography of Trump and it should describe things that are important to Trump, whether successful or not. See additional argument at the bottom of the Talk section "Restructuring the Lead". Bdushaw ( talk) 04:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

:I think this seems reasonable. Both were indeed very significant campaign promises that were not delivered. Pipsally ( talk) 06:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)</> Blocked sockpuppet account I forgot to sign this edit. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 06:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Also support adding one sentence like that to the lede. –– FormalDude ^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 19:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Opposed to this per Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk)'s rational in prior discussions about basically this above on this page. Trump made a lot of campaign promises that we don't cover, what makes these special above the rest? And we can hardly flood the page with each one unless you want to go back and do them all for every President. Like I dont suppose the editors pushing for this here would want to add how Obama failed at instituting a public option into the ACA that he campaigned on, or a raise in the minimum wage on his article page. Don't suppose they'd want to add how Biden failed to deliver a minimum wage increase or student loan relief or free community college etc if it fails to materialise during his Presidency either. So I have no idea why we need to attempt to reset the standard here. Plus this conversation was essentially already had above, why has it gotten a new section to re-debate it again? So a few editors can quickfire agree with each other, say there's consensus and pack it onto the page? Davefelmer ( talk) 22:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

There is a multitude of reliable sources that 1) state this was a key 2016 campaign promise of Trump's and 2) show significant coverage that makes this promise notable. Such as:

• Reuters "Trump promised to repeal Obamacare. Now what?"
• ABC "President-elect Donald Trump campaigned on a promise of a full repeal of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, as one of his first acts in office."
• BBC "Candidate Donald Trump echoed this when he labelled the [Affordable Care Act] a "disaster" and promised something much better if he were elected president."
• Washington Post "Trump has vowed to 'repeal and replace' Obamacare."
• NPR "President-elect Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers have signaled their intention to follow through on their campaign promise to repeal President Obama's landmark health care legislation." –– FormalDude ^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 22:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Dude, who cares? Do I have to re-paste my entire comment so you get the point here? You could find just as many sources for any of his other big campaign promises, so again as numerous editors brought up, do we include them all? Then of course you can find just as many sources talking about Obama running on a public option, and increasing the minimum wage. Likewise Biden on both as well as cancelling student loans and more. So do we add in all of those as failures on the others' pages, and go back and do this for every Pres? Davefelmer ( talk) 00:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The "just as many sources" may support my second statement that there is coverage, but few would support support my first statement that they were a major campaign promise of Trump's. –– FormalDude ^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 01:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I think including a sentence about the fate of the wall would be worth doing, considering it was by far one of his biggest campaign pledges and a policy item which is/was closely tied to Trump's personal image, also the fact that its debates in Congress resulted in the longest shutdown ever (which I also think should be mentioned). I think the currently proposed sentence is a little misleading though. Per Trump wall article, 455 miles of barrier were built during Trump's term, including 49 miles of which were entirely new barrier. A sentence which I had up in the article before it was taken down was something like "Trump campaigned for building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, however construction was not fully completed during his term, despite debates in Congress resulting in the longest government shutdown in U.S. history." I think that would be a more fitting sentence. Basil the Bat Lord ( talk) 01:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

455 miles of barrier were built ... including 49 miles of which were entirely new barrier Per the Houston Chronicle, Most of that was to replace existing structures that were outdated or in disrepair, per WaPo, it was an undertaking whose main achievement was the replacement of smaller, more permeable anti-vehicle barriers with imposing 30-foot-tall steel bars. (Some of those "imposing 30-foot-tall steel bars" got blown into Mexico or were about to fall into the Rio Grande, so basically no improvement over the former "smaller, more permeable anti-vehicle barriers".) Trump also promised that Mexico would pay for it, and Mexico did not pay for the 49 miles of new or 406 miles of replacement fence out of the promised 2000. Trump had many signature campaign issues—if something he mentioned got enthusiastic crowd support, he added it to his routine, and the more outlandish the claim, the more publicity he got. It's fine for Trump wall, the Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign, and Donald_Trump#2016_presidential_campaign#Trump wall and government shutdown, but it's just one of a long list of campaign promises not kept. Not putting any of his campaign issues, no matter how egregious, in the lead also seems to be in line with the articles on other presidents. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 09:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

As a non-American, I saw Trump's border wall was one of the major parts of his international image. A lot of the other things mentioned above were obviously important internally, bit did not get the international coverage of the wall. It seems odd to me for it to not get a mention in the lead. Remember that Wikipedia is global, not just for Americans. HiLo48 ( talk) 10:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The added text was misleading as Trump did manage to build some new wall (the text suggests he built no wall), though this is obviously less than what he falsely claimed he built and promised. Currently opposed to this Space4Time3Continuum2x's reasoning laid out before, per if you want to add the text please tell what text it should replace (one in one out), as the lead is already too long.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The border was incomplete, his promise that Mexico would pay for it never happened as most people knew was not going to happen. Instead, Trump took out the money from veteran families to his ridiculous fence that was never finished. The construction was not even halfway close to being done in Trump's last day of office and it's a good thing Biden terminated further construction because it would simply be a bad investment, we could spend that money for something useful. Why mention something that Trump not only didn't accomplish but lie (and cause the longest shutdown in US History)? I think it would hurt his integrity. Dinosauce2001 ( talk) 16:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a significant part of his life story that he was able to win the presidency on a promise that "most people knew was not going to happen" and then fail to deliver and then still run a neck-and-neck reelection campaign and maintain control over the Republican party to this day. That's a noteworthy accomplishment and characteristic of his success. SPECIFICO talk 17:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I like the sarcasm but that's the entire story of his life, failing and then being able to sell the failures as big successes. Whether or not that particular promise enabled him to win the presidency, we'll never know. Personally, I agree with 538 that Comey's "we found e-mails" letter on October 28, 2016, may have just given Trump enough votes in some swing states to win the Electoral College. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

No sarcasm intended. This article is about Trump the man, not his presidency per se, and I think the article still contains a lot of content that misses the point about Trump's life. The article still reflects the trap that the mainstream media and expert analysts fell into from say 2015-2020. That trap was to interpret Trump as if he were a conventional politician who 1) sought the office with the purpose of engagement in governance and public policy and 2) Knew enough to hire competent staff of whatever ideology and to assimilate their advice in the context of history and factual evience presented. But Trump is increasingly being viewed in more recent journalism and expert analysis as an incompetent and easily distracted character who was indifferent to the official role and was predominantly interested in personal aggrandizement and flattery. I think it's undeniable, and RS have commented on this at some length, that he is a master of public communication, branding, and messaging. In that regard, arguably he eclipses Reagan.

So, with respect to these editorial decisions, my reading of RS has led me on several occasions to suggest we should not confuse his administration's achievements with his personal biography except in cases for which we have detailed reports of his personal involvement. As to whether he knew that he was skirting the limits of his authority and of legal behavior in office, it is too early to have sufficient evidence for that. But I think, e.g. that his administration's Covid policies and messaging that RS tell us led to hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths can only be understood in the context of his ignorance, self-absorbtion, and misguided personal rumination about policy rather than as an evil, rationally considered choice to sacrifice their lives for his re-election or political legacy. SPECIFICO talk 19:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal added and reverted

I've read through the above arguments and implemented statements to the lead that try to respond to the sundry points of view. The consensus, IMO, was to include these statements. I noted, BTW, that the lead had only one domestic item for his presidency, viz the Tax bill. Now it has three. Bdushaw ( talk) 17:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I count a small 5 to 4 majority for adding something to the lead, with two editors saying to keep it to one sentence. The previous version: He signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 which cut taxes for individuals and businesses and rescinded the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Act. The new version: Although Trump had campaigned for a U.S.-Mexico border wall, Congress did not allocate funds for it, so he reallocated existing funding to replace 400 miles of barriers and build 49 miles of new wall. Trump promised to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but the repeal did not pass the Senate. He signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 which cut taxes for individuals and businesses and rescinded the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the ACA. Sorry, I don't see a consensus for this change, and the phrasing needs work. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 21:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting, Space4Time3. My position remains in support of no more than one sentence added. I don't think the phrasing above is the most ideal. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 22:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Huh??? Space4Time3Continuum2x, you reverted once already, so I took the proposed text to Talk as per procedure. There was a discussion over a reasonable amount of time, I tried to respond to the discussion. You report on a "vote", while, as you know, it is not a vote, nor is it even an RFC; its just a Talk. You reverted again - you've made it clear you dislike the addition, but you do not have veto authority here. You say "phrasing needs work" ... yeah, so per standard Wikipedia process, we should work on the phrasing in the article, yes? I've made no objections to changes to the text. By "phrasing needs work", you seem to be accepting the addition, but do you expect a perfect phrasing to be first hammered out on these Talk pages? That's not how Wikipedia works. If individual editors can claim veto authority, I don't see what the process forward is. Nothing is stopping me from overruling your declaration of "no consensus", and my case is stronger than yours. Bdushaw ( talk) 00:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I think we should leave the text out until more discussion occurs and we reach a firmer consensus. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 01:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Additional discussion

• I'd support a short sentence or two like: One of Trump's major campaign promises was for a U.S.-Mexico border wall. The wall was expanded only 49 additional miles while Trump was in office and was not completed as Congress did not authorize funds for it. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 01:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I keep thinking about restructuring the lead, but, frankly, I haven't the energy for the ensuing battle that would occur. But I'll at least mention what I was thinking, roughly. Overall, I keep focused on how the lead should reflect the content of the article. The third paragraph ("Trump's political positions...") seems more and more like it is dangling. I would try to combine it with the presidency paragraph. The lead still is roughly chronological, reflecting the "newsy" response to recent events; that can be useful, but I think a different structure would work more efficiently. I contemplate combining the impeachments into a single paragraph and removing some of the details (e.g. of the Mueller Report). The lead should have a paragraph devoted to "Public Profile" - this seems obvious, given Trump's focus on the issue, and also the large section on that in the article. This new paragraph could include elements of the third paragraph (misleading statements, racism). Lastly, the lead will need a new paragraph on what is happening/long-term impacts post presidency. I heard a comment on Washington Week that Trump's immigration policies were still impacting, dominating even, those of the Biden administration (though I personally think Biden has just had larger issues to deal with and hasn't gotten to immigration yet). If it were up to me, I would just do it, but, well, you know...(I don't have enough banana cream pies for the food fight...) Bdushaw ( talk) 14:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I think his messaging and conduct evolved over the course of his presidency as the assemblage of more-or-less establishment staff and advisors jumped ship or walked the plank. At first he was viewed by the establishment republicans as a vessell for things like tax reform and court appointments, but by the end he had fully adopted an authoritarian personal message and transformed the Republican party into its current (fill-in-the-blank) program and platform. There are many long-range effects, most of which we don't fully understand only 5 months after his tenure. SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Bdushaw, easy. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 06:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thinking about the lead of this biography, rather than president, there are obvious important omissions from the lead. Omissions that may highlight the difference between the biography and presidency articles. One omission is that Trump talked ad nauseam about the wall on the border with Mexico, Mexico will pay for it, bad people coming across, etc, etc - during the first campaign and then he spent considerable political capital on trying to pay for it, etc. etc. This is a main biographical point - yet there is no mention of this intense focus in the lead, or that it came to little in the end. It is of lessor importance to Presidency, since not much happened, but for the biography it is a key point. Similarly, Trump talked to considerable degree about how he was going to repeal the Affordable Care Act, yet that attempt failed. Again, it didn't happen, so it is of lessor importance to Presidency, but it was a main focus of Trump the man. The lead does not really mention the result that the repeal he had focused on failed. The lead does mention China and tariffs, which is consistent with what I recall his rhetoric was during the first campaign. Similarly with the North Korea issue, and backing out of the Iran nuclear deal. There may be other similar topics - things he talked a lot about and that were important to him, and how those topics played out in his presidency (none come to mind just now). Bdushaw ( talk) 02:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I would like to include a sentence like "Although during the campaign Trump vigorously argued for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act and for building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, the repeal of ACA did not pass the senate and neither Congress nor Mexico would allocate funds for building the wall." I note, however, that these issues, quite prominent in the campaign, are barely mentioned in the article. The downplaying of Trump's rhetoric on these issues in the article is a gross mischaracterization of what happened, as I recall 2016. The failure to repeal the ACA was a big deal (recall McCain's famous vote), and the wall issue went on and on as Trump sought ways around Congress's objections. There was a sentence on the ACA before, but it got removed - given the importance of the issue to Trump, that was likely a mistake. An example of the difference between biography and presidency articles, perhaps. Bdushaw ( talk) 06:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I've added a version of the proposed sentence to the lead. I post here to note that the next/following sentence, "He enacted the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 which cut taxes for individuals and businesses and rescinded the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the ACA." has hardly any support in the article! "cut taxes for individuals and businesses", while obvious, is not evident in the article, while the "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017" is relegated to an associated article. Bdushaw ( talk) 21:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Thinking about this sentence ("He enacted the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act..."), and reading the associated article, I do not know why this sentence is in the lead. The sentence seems entirely political/POV: "Trump enacted"???, "cut taxes..etc." and increased the deficit and did many other things, it reads like a bullet on a "re-elect me" brochure, and Trump himself had very little to do with it. The sentence may be an example of the difference between the biography article and the presidency article - I don't think it is appropriate in the lead for the former, but is likely for the latter. Given its lack of substantiation in the article, and these reasons, I'll likely remove the sentence - but pause here for comment. Bdushaw ( talk) 00:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree, this was one of several passive involvements. He signed the bill, that's dog bites man. SPECIFICO talk 02:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x has reverted out the sentence I added referring to the ACA and the wall. I could not disagree more...not only were these elements of primary importance to Trump, for a long time, the article content supports their addition to the lead. "Too much detail"? Forsooth! Perhaps the sentence could be condensed, I was striving for clarity. Meanwhile the sentence before (Muslim ban) and after (Tax cut) are barely supported by the article. Seems bass-ackwards. Since we were discussing these sentences prior to the revert, I am puzzled by the lack of discussion prior to the revert. Bdushaw ( talk) 18:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't make the connection between your edit and this Restructuring section. I wouldn't object to replacing "enacted" with "signed" but I oppose a sentence on Trump aggressively campaigning on something that wasn't done in the end. Muslim ban and trickle-down tax cut (hello, trillion dollar deficit with nothing to show for it except stock buy-backs), those took place and, IMO, are part of his legacy. I'd prefer "enacted" because this was something he wanted which also benefited his personal bottom line. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

In my view the reasons you give don't hold up (and we are just talking here!). The rationale "something that wasn't done in the end" has been given before, but this argument doesn't work - this article is a biography of Donald Trump; not President Donald Trump, not the Presidency of Donald Trump. As a biography, it is about him - his interests, things he spends time on, successes and failures. As mentioned above, Trump spent enormous time and political capital on the Wall and "repeal and replace" the ACA. They warrant a mention in the lead, and indeed the article supports them; as anyone can see in the article. The 2017 Tax cut is most definitely not supported, as you can see for yourself; in particular the phrase "cut taxes for individuals and businesses" is not mentioned in the article. The main article on the 2017 Tax Cut barely mentions Trump - I believe it was a Republican initiative more than a Trump initiative. I don't disagree with your assessment of the consequences of the law, but those are not relevant to this biography - indeed, those are external arguments not given in this article. I don't entirely object to the Muslim ban in the lead, but I do note that its support is a mere brief section/paragraph in the article, that barely notes its importance. I contemplate changing the 2017 Tax Cut sentence to "The individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Act was rescinded by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017", leading a determination of Trump's role up to the reader. (I seem to be one of the few people who try to adhere to the guideline that the lead should reflect the content of the article!) Bdushaw ( talk) 00:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand your arguments. Are you saying that the lead must use the exact phrases we use in the body of the article? The Health section says that The 2017 tax bill signed by Trump effectively repealed the ACA's individual health insurance mandate in 2019 while the Economy and trade section says Trump signed tax legislation that permanently cut the corporate tax rate to 21 percent etc. IMO those two sections support the lead's summary. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

RE exact phrases, no, not saying that, though it can be helpful. I noted some of the language you mention after I posted above; I should have been more careful. It is a matter of weight, of course - there is more weight in the article concerning repeal of the ACA and the wall than the tax cut; both are mentioned several places, as they were during the campaign (many times). And as you note it is "the tax bill that repealed mandate" and it is "the tax legislation that permanently cut". Trump was not so much personally invested in this legislation as he was the wall and repeal the ACA; I view the tax legislation as Republican, rather than Trump, legislation. He is still visiting the border regarding the wall. As I noted, the main tax cut article barely mentions Trump; he was not as personally invested in it as "repeal and replace" (with something way better, though there was never a plan) and "Mexico will pay for it"; those were Trump signature issues. There is perhaps some phrasing that might be employed that may be more efficient: "Trump campaigned for Muslim ban, wall, repeal ACA, Tax cuts. Muslim ban eventually upheld, wall not funded, ACA not repealed, but individual mandate eliminated by Tax cut legislation." IMO the article rather downplays the repeal of ACA and building the wall, compared to how I remember Trump's intensity on those issues during the campaign and Trump's ongoing drama trying to get the wall funded (government shutdown and national emergency). Bdushaw ( talk) 19:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I do not think it was worth adding that content to the lead here, should be on the Presidency article. The lead is already long enough as it is, and I think others have suggested it before, but I think we need a 1 in 1 out policy in terms content in the lead. I.e. want to add a mention of X about Trump in the lead? Fine. What sentence do we remove as well for it to fit?  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the Tax cuts should be in the lede - as they have been for a few years. They were a key part of his presidency - presented as a big achievement for Trump and the Republicans - and opposed by the Democrats. And, for example, G. W. Bush’s tax cuts feature prominently in the lede of his article. For balance, while I do see the validity of adding the failure to repeal ACA to the lede, at the same time the rescinding of the ACA individual mandate should also feature.

In terms of the border wall, while he didn’t receive Congressional funding; ultimately, he did receive funds for construction through the national emergency declaration. This should be in the lede. The current phrasing suggests that no money was received and therefore no wall was built - which of course is untrue. JLo-Watson ( talk) 00:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I also agree with the proposer about reducing/removing the detail re. the Mueller Report. The impeachments are significant and will be in the history books but the Mueller probe is not really as significant now (while it was certainly at the time). JLo-Watson ( talk) 01:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• 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 a 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) 08:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Well, you can see the arguments I made above. Also the article text: text in Campaign, declarations first day in office, the various activities to get the wall funded, the attempt to repeal of the ACA (just prior to pandemic), failing to repeal so remove individual mandate, Trump's (and it was Trump) government shutdown over wall funding, Trump's declaration of national emergency, etc. These things did not occur for the other issues you mention. The lead should reflect article text. This is a biography of Trump, not an article on his presidency. Bdushaw ( talk) 03:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Moving on, I still think the lead is fairly distorted compared to the article content. I contemplate consolidating the Mueller text into the election paragraph. The lead has the sentences "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist. He has a history of insulting and belittling women." - I was contemplating that someone from the political right would object to such statements, or dismiss them as "so what". Indeed, one could contemplate language that would frame the issue along the lines of "he tried to dismiss the race issue and restore the nation to its better past" (or whatever, you get the idea). I don't speak "right" which is part of my point. How and what would an objective Trumpist (???) state some of these things; I suppose the principal problem is that such statements collapse against a mountain of facts and basic logic. I was reading recently how part of the problem with the present government's attempts to address the climate change issue is that most of the climate scientists resigned during the Trump admin.; Trump's about faces on the climate issue (bring back coal; rescind energy standards; back out of climate treaties; ignore the issue for four years) were a serious errors on this important topic - becoming more obviously important as the summer progresses. Bdushaw ( talk) 19:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

the "belittling women" statement is unsourced and so either should be sourced (in something other than an opinion article), or removed. Locking the page with this crap is a textbook example of political bias in wikipedia. Women's individual accusations against Trump can be listed and either stand on their own merits or do not. 141.156.238.241 ( talk) 15:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Material in the lede does not have to be sourced if it is sourced in the body of the article, this is. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

We should change the last sentence of the third paragraph in the lead: "He has a history of insulting and belittling women." My main rationale is that, especially considering the sentence that precedes it, it is somewhat vague and unsightly. Plus, not everyone insulted or belittled by him has been a man. In my opinion, we should instead devote that sentence to the sexual misconduct allegations made against him and say something like, "He has also been the subject of numerous sexual misconduct allegations." Songwaters ( talk) 23:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that may have been put in there in place of "history of misogyny" - when it was suggested to say that he has a history of racism and misogyny. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

the statement is also unsourced and so either should be sourced (with something other than an opinion article), or removed. And the page is locked with this? This is a textbook example of political bias in wikipedia. 141.156.238.241 ( talk) 15:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Sources are not used in the lead; whatever is in the lead has to be based on sourced material in the article itself. Sourced material about his issues with women is found in the section Donald Trump#Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

North Korea continued to build up its arsenal of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. ^{[1] [2]}

I believe this sentence is redundant as we have just said that nuke talks broke down. It is also somewhat misleading. Both sources used clearly state that the lack of nuclear bomb tests is a fact, while NK's continued build up of weapons is intelligence analysis:

• "While Kim hasn’t detonated a nuclear bomb since 2017, experts believe he has continued to make progress toward developing warheads that could overwhelm U.S. antimissile systems."
• "While North Korea has refrained from carrying out provocative tests of its most advanced weapon systems, it never stopped working on them, U.S. intelligence officials said."

Arguably we should add that NK hasn't conducted a nuclear bomb or ICBM test since 2017. But this is not an article about NK. Therefore this sentence should be removed.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 22:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• • While this article is not NK, it is about Trump, and leaving out NK would not tell the reader about Trump’s progress or lack thereof regarding NK. I’m okay with adding the lack of nuclear tests. NK may not have tested ICBMs but they tested medium range and short range BMs, I think, so… I guess I would just not mention the BM tests altogether. starship .paint ( exalt) 14:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • WaPo:

    Southeast of the capital, meanwhile, new buildings sprouted across an industrial complex that was processing uranium for as many as 15 new bombs, according to current and former U.S. and South Korean officials, as well as a report by a United Nations panel of experts.

    starship .paint ( exalt) 14:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Which is an intelligence guess.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 02:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Then we can simply cite it as that. starship .paint ( exalt) 05:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The sentence isn't redundant, and we shouldn't add that it's a guess. "Intelligence is the product resulting from the collection, collation, evaluation, analysis, integration, and interpretation of collected information", per NSA Intelligence Threat Handbook, not an opinion, i.a., a guess, based on little or no information. That the intelligence is occasionally misused, e.g., by politicians (Iraq's WMD), is a different matter. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, "guess" was the incorrect term. It is "intelligence", but I think you have a false take on Iraq's WMD, as the intelligence community was pushing this interpretation on politicians. In this case, in all sources it seems to be described as being according to "experts", "officials" etc. The statement in this article — "North Korea continued to build up its arsenal of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles" — seems to me to have no precise meaning. "Nuclear weapons" usually are interpreted as meaning "ballistic missiles". A "ballistic missile" could mean any missile at all. To "build up" an "arsenal" doesn't necessary mean to add an extra weapon to that arsenal. It could just mean enhance the arsenal in some way, even merely by thinking about it. So unless NK has been actively decommissioning significant numbers of "nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles" without telling anyone about it, then this piece of fudge has to be true. It is only really necessary in this article, because certain editors think this is the "Donny Sux" club website...-- Jack Upland ( talk) 15:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Davefelmer made this this good faith edit to add Israel to the lead, calling Trump a "strong supporter" of Israel. While this is not inaccurate, it's not descriptive. Almost every U.S. politician can be described as a "strong supporter" of Israel. Something valid in the lead could mention the Abraham Accords or Jerusalem embassy. I believe there is consensus against mentioning the Abraham Accords in the lead? What about the embassy? Is there consensus for that? –  Muboshgu ( talk) 18:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

It isn't mentioned in the body, and hasn't been mentioned in the news since 2018. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 20:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Omit. SPECIFICO talk 21:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@ Slatersteven: Your statement in the edit summary is incorrect. There have been three scholarly surveys done which included Trump and they have consistent on where they rank Trump. Interstellarity ( talk) 13:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

So far, but he is still, alive, hell we do not yet know how Biden will turn out. We are too close to events for a fair and unbiased appraisal of his impact, legacy and ranking. This kind of analysis can only really be done years (if not decades) later. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I think he meant one one President since Trump, not one survey. Anyhow, I think this is a matter of time - the equivalent info is in the Obama article from surveys a year after he left office. If people want to let the dust settle for a year or two they can. Trump'll still be the worst in a year's time and it can go in then. Pipsally ( talk) 13:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Given his divisiveness, I would say wait for mone whole (presidential) election. Let's see how Biden compares, hell Trump might even be the next president. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

See the previous discussion on the topic. Oppose any such inclusion for the lead, still for too early to determine his impact, legacy, etc, etc.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

We mention the C-SPAN survey in the Approval ratings section. The consensus in the previous discussion was against putting it in the lead. No objection to rewording the short paragraph to add the 2018 survey by the two political science professors (NY Times op-ed) to it. They surveyed "presidential politics experts" as opposed to C-SPAN's general historians and published an article on the results in 2020. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you think a good rule of thumb would be to wait until there are at least two presidents after the president in focus has left office before adding historical data of Trump or any president in general rather than add historical rankings right after they leave office? My take is that any president that has left office more than 25 years ago can absolutely have their historical rankings in the article since their legacies have likely been settled. This would include all presidents prior to George H. W. Bush. While presidents after Clinton are still developing their legacies. I'd be interested to know when the historical rankings got into the Obama article. Was it a year after his presidency or more? Is there a guideline on how long we should wait before deciding to add historical rankings? I appreciate anyone's thoughts. Interstellarity ( talk) 18:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. After a president has been out of office for a year or so, there will be scholarly historical evaluations, and we should and do mention the serious, well-conducted ones. As we already do in the "ratings" section. Sure, the ratings may change in 25 years and we can update them then, but we don't have to wait that long. (Why 25 years? Why not 50, or 100?) On the other hand, I oppose adding the 2018 survey (of "presidential politics experts", whatever that means, but I suspect it means people who evaluate them on a purely political basis) or any other surveys conducted while he was still president. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by purely political basis. Party politics? The "presidential politics experts" mentioned in the NY Times op-ed cited in Interstellarity's reverted edit are political scientists. The op-ed was written by two of the three political science professors ( Rottinghaus, Eady, and Vaughn) who conducted the "expert survey of political scientists who study the presidency", per the abstract of the article published in 2020. They also looked at how party affiliation/affinity affected the rankings (slightly)—Trump dead last (#44) among Democratic-leaning experts, #43 among independent-leaning, #40 among Republican-leaning. What are the chances these rankings have improved in the last two years? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 08:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 09:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I stand corrected about the meaning of "presidential politics experts". But I stand by my opinion that we should not publish any "historical ranking" studies published while he was still president. -- MelanieN ( talk) 03:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Let’s be clear what we are talking about. Today this was added to the lead by User:Interstellarity, removed by User:Slatersteven, re-added by User:Pipsally, and re-removed by User:Czello. Removal was the correct thing to do, because at this discussion a month ago, it was agreed not to put this kind of comment in the lead. That discussion was only about the lead. The sentence in the Ratings section was not specifically discussed at that time but its presence seemed to be generally accepted by most people, although a few said it should be removed. Is that what people are now discussing - whether to have any mention at all of historical rankings, including in the Ratings section? That would need consensus to remove, because it is longstanding content, but it is a valid topic for discussion. Let's just be clear what we are discussing/proposing. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I would leave it out of the lead because it hasn't obtained the level of coverage to make it that important. As a general rule, since Nixon the current or last Republican president is the worst president in history until a new Republican president is elected. Then his record is re-evaluated and eventually Speaker Pelosi says, “I'm so sorry, President Bush. I never thought I'd pray for the day that you were president again.” [22] TFD ( talk) 21:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

As funny as that passage was, I have a different take. The people going into an election have a right to understand the rigorous consensus around a major party figure to make a decision about how to strategically pick their next nominee. Without someone endogenizing the cost of evaluation, all markets tend toward a lemon market (Grossman-Stiglitz). Burying the lead on this is a disservice to the people examining a political party's past. Signaling in an election can be very expensive, especially in such a balkanized media landscape, which is what makes this volunteer-based and free website so valuable. The historical evaluation should be put in no later than January of 2023, when the primary season for the 2024 election begins in earnest (at least, the shadow primary). Adamopoulos ( talk) 17:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

TFD, surely you wouldn't deny that each succeeding Republican president might have been "worse" than his or her predecessor? At least since Wilson? SPECIFICO talk 18:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

We thought we had hit rock-bottom but then we heard someone knocking from below. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Per MOS:NOBACKREF, please remove "COVID-19" from the section headings "COVID-19 outbreak at the White House" and "COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 presidential campaign". Both are redundant with the parent heading. 68.97.42.64 ( talk) 08:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Elli ( talk | contribs) 19:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. However, your change to the second heading created a grammatical inconsistency between it and the preceding one. "Outbreak at the White House" includes the article "the", but "Effects on 2020 presidential campaign" omits it (before "2020"). It looks like the article favors inclusion of "the", as seen in "Support from the far-right", "Election to the presidency", "Impeachment trial in the Senate", "2021 storming of the Capitol", and "Relationship with the press"—with the exception of "Family separation at border". 68.97.42.64 ( talk) 03:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done –– FormalDude talk 05:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Should we really be describing him as a politician in the lead? He only ever held one political office so he's not exactly a career politician. Векочел ( talk) 05:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@ Векочел: Seems a naive argument to not describe someone who held the office of President of the United States as a 'politician'.

Not to mention Trump has been in political circles and mulling running for office since the 80s, or that Trump has been an official presidential candidate three times and unofficially once. A mostly failed politician is still a politician. Would you propose we delete Political career of Donald Trump too? –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 06:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

It's redundant. If the reason we call him a politician is that he was president, then it is redundant to say he was president and a politician. This may be a rebuttal of Trump's populist claim that he was not a politician. Any rebuttals should be made in a straightforward rather than subtle way. TFD ( talk) 01:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Makes a certain amount of sense. SPECIFICO talk 01:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@ The Four Deuces: Trump is a career politician and has been for the greater part of the past two decades. That's why I don't see any problem with labeling him as one.

I'm not super familiar with his "populist claim that he was not a politician", are you referring to his campaign mantra that he was not part of "the swamp"? –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 01:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Before becoming president, Trump's career was in real estate and media. Reliable sources did not describe him as a career politician. You can see one of his claims that he is not a politician in CNN's 2015 clip: "Donald Trump: I'm not a politician ..." He said, "I’m not a politician, and have never wanted to be one. But when I saw the trouble our country was in, I knew I couldn’t stand by and watch any longer. Our country has been so good to me, I love our country, I felt I had to act.” [23] Reliable sources commented on this appeal. (See for example "Why they love Trump: 'He's not a politician'" (BBC News 10 June 2016). Even this article notes he was "the first U.S. president without prior military or government service."

Of course one can argue that he really is a politician. But generally we would say something like, "Although Trump claimed not to be a politician, political scientists have pointed out that anyone who runs for office/holds office etc. is by definition a politician. Factcheck.org rated Trump's claim as four Pinocchios, their highest rating for false claims." The way we approach it is in my opinion passive-aggressive and tendentious.

TFD ( talk) 02:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

There's no need to go to great lengths explaining, or trying to weasel out of the fact that he is a politician now, even if he arguably wasn't before 2015. This is the lead sentence, and it explains what the person IS. If he wasn't primarily a politician in the past, he certainly is one now. It's probably the best known feature of his identity now. Check out other "non-politicians" who have held elective office: Jesse Ventura, Arnold Schwartzenegger, Al Franken - each of them held office once, after a lifetime of other careers, and each of them is described in the lead sentence as a politician (along with the other stuff).-- MelanieN ( talk) 17:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

If Trump is a politician because he was president, why do we say that he was president AND a politician? Can you tell me what additional information saying he was a politician provides? TFD ( talk) 19:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Why do we say he is an American who was president of the United States? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 20:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Great point, we should remove "American" too because it's bloody obvious that a President of the United States is an American politician. But to remove "American" or add "politician" will require a new RFC and since the last one ended in March, I think it's too soon. Levivich 15:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Is there a mandatory or customary waiting period that I'm not aware of? The discussion in March wasn't even an RfC, it was your "lead sentence proposal" that gave us a choice of four lead sentences, none of which included politician. Also, if I remember correctly, there were three or four different discussions about the lead sentence/paragraph going on at pretty much the same time or not much earlier because editors kept starting new ones. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: It looks like we do not use the word "politician" anywhere in the lede section. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 20:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

It was added and deleted a few times recently. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Per consensus item 50, based on this RfC (don't get me started on the merits of it) and confirmed by this one, the first sentence should not include "politician". I supported including "politician". Should we regard this as a new discussion to support adding the term? If that's the case, I vote aye, based on reality. What's the distinction between a politician and a career politician? If you run for political office and then assume that political office, you're a politician, especially if you don't shut up and retire to your golf course/real estate empire after you're voted out of said political office. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I still think we should include "politician" in his descriptives, and would so argue if a new RfC is opened. Note that the last one - the one cited in the "current consensus" list - found no consensus on whether or not to say "poltician" and left the question open. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)