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.

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

Under the health section, should "Trump says he has never drunk alcohol ..." not be "Trump says he has never drank alcohol ..."? ― Levi_OP ^Talk 02:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: 'drunk' is the correct past participle. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 02:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Hardly seems neutral at all - mentions the fake Russian story, the "big lie" which is the "big truth", etc. What is wrong with being objective? No one can be worse than Joe Biden in comparison. His page reads much more neutral although it is clear he is totally lost and has made HUGE mistakes already (Afghanistan, open border, vaccinations, etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.204.56.195 ( talk) 13:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, and there is no need to shout. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Surge elec, you were right in [ this edit] that the url was dead. It's often a good idea, though, to search for the title of the article since some publications move their content to new urls, as was the case here. I just added the new url and removed the archive-info. You also changed the correct date of the Independent article to a wrong one (I corrected it). Were you going to change some other date maybe? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 20:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Surge_Elec ( talk) 20:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The first link does not link to "politician", but to his political career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:404:C680:4B60:4DD5:6011:23CE:BD24 ( talk) 03:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

That is how it is supposed to be, see consensus item 50. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 00:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Swap low quality image of Trump attending baseball game in 2009 to photo of Trump attending a press conference for the New Jersey Generals under "Side ventures" subheading (represents actual side venture, not mischellanous baseball game attendance).

BarneyHank ( talk) 21:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{ edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 22:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

BarneyHank, Jonesey95, thanks for mentioning the picture. I found a place for both images (see this and this edit). We don't have that many pictures from before the presidency, and this one shows the pink marble in the lobby of Trump Tower as a bonus. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 08:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the closures notion that "generally" should be included in the sentence. The majority of editors say otherwise in the discussion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 04:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@ Iamreallygoodatcheckers: The closer has fixed that. –– FormalDude talk 04:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

In case anyone missed it, MelanieN amended her closing statement to clarify that the version without "generally" gained consensus. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 04:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that was my error and I have corrected it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is exceptionally biased, making it dangerous to democracy. The "Average Joe" who works from 8-5 and doesn't pay attention to politics would be highly mislead. The author is clearly angry, all while treating one side of various controversial subjects as absolute "fact". While it's understandable and even natural to be upset, a journalist/editor should never carry that imbalance into their professional life. This post is highly inappropriate, and should be rescinded immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.246.239.168 ( talk) 16:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

1. this article was not written by one person, it is in fact a collaborative effort. 2. We are not journalists, rather we go with what journalists say in RS. 3. please read wp:talk. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Repetitive. Not done. SPECIFICO talk 18:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

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

---

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

Change the last sentence in the lead "Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in United States history." to "Scholars and historians generally rank Trump as a below average president." DeaconShotFire ( talk) 17:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{ edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I would, had the two fresh discussions made yesterday and earlier today not been closed by a third party.

This change does not change the meaning of the sentence; it makes it sound less flagrantly biased (which it is). Using the word worst in Wikipedia's voice is terrible writing practise. DeaconShotFire ( talk) 17:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

It absolutely would change the meaning of the sentence, and you wouldn't have suggested it if it didn't. Whether or not you find it "flagrantly biased" does not matter, because we report what reliable sources say. Cpotisch ( talk) 17:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

No it would not. The word worst (or best) is not used in the lead of any other U.S. president. There is no reason to use it here. DeaconShotFire ( talk) 17:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

That is patently false. If you were to simply read the RFC in question, you would see that the articles for James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, and Warren G. Harding all say in the lede that they considered among the worst presidents. Cpotisch ( talk) 18:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

That's an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Why couldn't we say that Lincoln and Washington are rated at the top or Harding or Buchanan are rated at the bottom, as long as supported by reliable sourcing? –  Muboshgu ( talk) 17:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Because the wording suggests that Demopedia Wikipedia has an opinion on what constitutes good and bad. WP:OTHERSTUFF is irrelevant when seeking consistency and neutrality on similar or identical issues. DeaconShotFire ( talk) 18:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

James Buchanan’s lead has “ Historians and scholars consistently rank Buchanan as one of the country's worst presidents.” Andrew Johnson also has “worst”. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 18:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Then I take issue with those as well and will change them. The vast majority of U.S. president articles do not use this language. DeaconShotFire ( talk) 18:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Please don’t. Ditto for Pierce, by the way. Trump is up next on the CSPAN 2021 list. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 18:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Back in July on Wikimedia Commons, I uploaded some pictures of Donald Trump (credit to Gage Skidmore) from the "Rally to Protect Our Elections" held in Phoenix, Arizona on July 24, 2021. I think it would be good to add one of them to the post presidency section of Trump's Wikipedia page. Here are just a few images to chose from. RandomUserGuy1738 ( talk) 04:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the pictures. I used the left one on TPUSA's page but I don't think this article needs another picture of Trump speaking at a rally (we have three, from 2011, 2016, and 2020, respectively). Same old same old—rhetoric, heavy make-up, shoulder pads, and bursting-at-the-seams. Gotta love Gage Skidmore. So many great pictures of the event in his Flickr photo stream: the Trump rump, the ones proclaiming Trump to be president, the one with the horns. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 06:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the one on the far left should be added. This section is standalone and large enough to fully contain an image. An image is certainly warranted. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 00:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

An image is fine. starship .paint ( exalt) 09:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

" Little resistance", Iamreallygoodatcheckers? The editor offering said little resistance was the only one who actually had an argument as to the merits of adding a fourth picture of Trump speaking at a rally. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 07:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x Only you have opposed it. Another editor and I have supported an image placement, and the starter of this presumably supports an image to by the nature starting the discussion and saying he thinks it would be good to have one, thats 3-to-1. This discussion hasn't been going anywhere since it started and has faced only a little resistance from you. If you would like to revert my edit pending the possibility of more comments go ahead, an image being placed in a section is usually uncontroversial, but I suppose this is Donald Trumps article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 20:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how it hurts the article even considering that this is another picture of Trump at the rally. starship .paint ( exalt) 06:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't improve the article, either (and I'm no longer the only one opposed to its addition:). I haven't seen any arguments as to what value or information another image of Trump at a random rally brings to the article. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 08:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Those convey nothing about "post-presidency". A better image would be needed. SPECIFICO talk 07:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

One of the biggest things it conveys about "post-presidency" is it depicts Trump post his presidency speaking about his election fraud and integrity stuff, that have a whole paragraph dedicated to in the post-presidency section. If you have a better image then we can consider it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 02:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

It conveys Alt: Trump, mouth open, wearing black suit with U.S. flag lapel pin and red tie, grabbing lectern he is standing behind with his right hand unless we change the caption to say "Trump promoting election fraud lies". For all we know, he's standing there catching flies. A picture can't convey the continued promotion of the "Big Lie" at all, the text does. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 08:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

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

(Redacted) Add Toddler Trump please. Swappaty ( talk) 22:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Image is a copyright violation. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 22:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, I thought we agreed long ago to exclude his wealth estimates, because The net worth of Donald Trump is not publicly known. He has a private company with no disclosure requirements, and though Forbes and others take their best shots at estimates, it's still pretty much "for entertainment purposes only." Fact is: no one really knows if he's even a billionaire or if he ever has been.

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1048613359&oldid=1048544746

soibangla ( talk) 00:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the last discussion was #Richest president sourcing and content. I just skimmed it, but it seems like no consensus for including the descriptor. Happy to be proven wrong by those who participated or care to read through more thoroughly. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 01:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

These are 2 separate issues. The first is the wealth, about which per consensus #5 is pretty clear. The second is the “first billionaire president” text, which was originally baselessly removed as unsourced despite the clear source directly after, and later also baselessly removed on the grounds that the source is deprecated. Because the removals had no valid policy basis, the long standing status quo should be honored. Mr Ernie ( talk) 01:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Immediately after announcing his candidacy:

The [Federal election regulators] report shows his assets to be worth at least $1.4 billion, including at least $70 million in stocks. Trump carries debt of at least $265 million. [3]

And that comes from information Trump provided. "At least" on both sides of the balance sheet makes it real fuzzy about whether he was a billionaire just prior to becoming president. soibangla ( talk) 01:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

So at least $1 billion +? I mean I hear you and I agree that it is fuzzy, but that’s also why consensus #5 was established. Mr Ernie ( talk) 01:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

So at least $1 billion +? No. Deduct at least $265 of debt. soibangla ( talk) 01:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think Forbes is a reliable source for this wealth, but apparently there is a consensus that it is. Maybe that needs to be rediscussed.

There's no consensus, however, on whether he was the first billionaire president–it's only that he was one of the wealthiest officeholders in American history. –– FormalDude talk 01:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The Forbes source is clear on that too. If you have an issue with the source please open a discussion at WP:RSN. Otherwise please help ensure that long-standing consensus text remains stable. Mr Ernie ( talk) 01:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

If I'm understanding the history here, you're using two definitions of consensus. One is agreed upon consensus (noted at the top of the page), which is that Forbes should be used for net worth. I don't dispute that. The other is a "silent consensus" that "first billionaire" is appropriate. That consensus appears to be over, now that editors are objecting. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 01:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem is that the objections to the text as unsourced and deprecated are invalid. Mr Ernie ( talk) 02:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Is it a problem though? Are you saying we still need to add "first billionaire president" to the article? –– FormalDude talk 02:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Until consensus develops around a valid reason for exclusion then long standing text should remain in articles. What’s the reason to remove it and where was consensus established? Don’t say it’s unsourced or deprecated, because those aren’t valid reasons. Mr Ernie ( talk) 02:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

But nobody seems to agree with you. BLP content needs indisputable sourcing. SPECIFICO talk 02:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not that it's unsourced or deprecated, it's that reliable sources contest it. We can't include Forbe's version of who was the first billionaire president over other reliable sources. That's not a neutral point of view. –– FormalDude talk 02:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Which reliable sources say he’s not the first billionaire president? Mr Ernie ( talk) 02:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The AP source I provided doesn't explicitly state it, but it establishes some reasons for skepticism and caution. Though I hasten to add that Trump said a week earlier that the data he gave to the FEC showed he was worth TEN BILLION DOLLARS, so there's that. [4] soibangla ( talk) 03:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

These sources cast doubt:

1. https://247wallst.com/banking-finance/2010/05/17/the-net-worth-of-the-american-presidents-washington-to-obama/
2. https://www.businessinsider.com/the-net-worth-of-the-american-presidents-from-washington-to-obama-2010-5#35th-john-fitzgerald-kennedy-1961-1963-kennedy-estate-worth-nearly-1-billion-34
3. https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/donald-trump-richest-president
4. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/02/13/donald-trump-george-washington-net-worth-us-presidents/39011559/ –– FormalDude talk 03:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Those are not reliable sources. Mr Ernie ( talk) 11:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

According to WP:RSP USA today is an RS and there is no consensus that business insider is not. Thus I think this is a contested claim, not a fact. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Both the Business Insider and USA Today articles reprint the info from the 247 Wall Street source. Mr Ernie ( talk) 13:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

And? They use it, they are an RS. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that's an interpretation of sourcing that I don't subscribe to. If a RS reprints info from a non-RS, does that make the information reliable, or does it simply need to be attributed to the non-RS? Maybe that's a discussion worth having at RSN, but I think now that isn't how it's treated. Mr Ernie ( talk) 13:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

If they do not question it yes, as they are accepting it as fact. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Mr. Ernie, why does this article need this information? J. B. Pritzker's article doesn't say that he's the richest person to ever hold the office of state governor, and Michael Bloomberg's article doesn't say that he's the richest billionaire to ever run for president. It's not as if this article was suppressing any information about Trump's (real, estimated, imagined) wealth. If any reader does wonder whether there were any other/richer billionaires, there's the inline link to the list of wealthiest officeholders in American history. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

There are three problems with this content. 1) The WP:BURDEN for verification is on the editor who favors the content, but in this case, it has not gained support that it's adequately-sourced. 2) It's WP:UNDUE trivia. even in the counterfactual event it were true. The WP:ONUS would be on those who seek to include it. 3) Current consensus is clearly against inclusion of "first billionaire president", and there was no prior discussion that would confirm previous approval or awareness of this first billionaire snippet. SPECIFICO talk 14:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a problem if the text is ultimately removed. I had a problem because SPECIFICO falsely removed it as unsourced and later on the grounds that the source was deprecated, and then again on the grounds that there was no consensus to include it. That's a misuse of the policies, and if I went and removed something cited to the NYT as unsourced or something to WaPo by saying WaPo was deprecated then those edits would be promptly reverted as nonsensical and I would likely get a talking to. I hope my fellow editors here don't endorse those types of tactics. Mr Ernie ( talk) 15:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you're aware this bit was not sourced to either NYT or WaPo. The billionaire bit is nonsensical for reasons agreed by every editor other than yourself. Let's move on. SPECIFICO talk 15:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Surge_elec, I just gotta ask how you know that whoever added or later looked at that cite did it on October 9, 2018, and not on October 3. I've noticed you doing an edit like this before. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that on certain sources, the access-dates were written as when the source (with that particular content) was archived. In this case, on that day (October 9), the source was like this (the archived October 3 source, was not like this). So, I made that way. Surge_Elec ( talk) 14:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

If it doesn't make sense to you, we can discuss. Surge_Elec ( talk) 15:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I don’t understand your reasoning. You mention an archive, but the example link from Space4 wasn’t archived. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 15:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Space4Time3Continuum2x. I changed it. Oct 3 archive [5] and Oct 4 archive [6]. The Oct 4 archive matches the content given in the wikisource. Surge_Elec ( talk) 15:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

If you still don't agree, you can edit as you like. As, I have completed editing this article. Surge_Elec ( talk) 15:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

And what difference does it make and why is the access date significant? SPECIFICO talk 15:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

What difference does it make: Explained above. That seemed to be the case for certain sources.

Why is the access date significant: In the format of sources, it is. All the sources generally on Featured Articles have access-dates. Surge_Elec ( talk) 15:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

So what? I see no defense as to the importance above. It sounds like you are way too involved with a pointless task. SPECIFICO talk 16:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It is part of the format, and I also find it helpful to know when a cite was added or corrected. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Surge_elec, I was curious and checked the edit history from October 3 to November 21 when I stopped looking. The cite was added on October 3 with the access-date but without the author's name. Whoever added the name later didn't change the access date. I just mentioned it because changing the access date to some time in the past didn't make sense since you checked the source today. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The "access-date=" parameter should be used, and it should be the date when the person who creates the content read the source. (I don't think a later addition of the author's name necessitates updating the access date, as the author doesn't change.) The date the editor added the content and ref is another matter, and the access date should not be updated without actually rereading the source, which can be a pain, so just use the original date of access. Keep in mind that the URL doesn't change when an article is updated, so we are currently dependent on the access date. -- Valjean ( talk) 16:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

When copying sources and content from other places at Wikipedia, remember to attribute the article it came from, and don't change those original access dates unless you actually have reread the source. Keep the original access date. -- Valjean ( talk) 16:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, yeah, agreed, it needs to be discussed but until then the consensus version per the RfC should be used. Except for the words "conspiracy theories", none of this was discussed: Through social media and mass media manipulation, Trump has brought fringe conspiracy theories into the mainstream, and used them to his political advantage. Please self-revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I viewed that as a bold edit that's also consistent with the RfC. Maybe needed some tweaks, but it reflected article text on the matter. SPECIFICO talk 14:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Which RfC would that be? It isn't this one. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. It did not limit the detail or context. The !votes and close were not for specific wording. The wording was briefly, minimally discussed, I believe. Anyway we need to discuss what wording is appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 17:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The current wording in the article reflects exactly what was decided in the RfC just closed: that he promoted conspiracy theories. Period. If anyone wants to expand on that wording, they should first do it in the article text - which currently says nothing about "social media and mass media manipulation" or "bringing into the mainstream" or "using to his political advantage". And of course such an addition to the text would need solid sourcing. Then and only then could it be considered as an addition to the lead. Come on, folks, you know this. You can't add original material to the lead that is not reflective of what is in the article itself. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The "and promoted conspiracy theories" is definitely supported by the body and by RfC consensus, and any further addition should probably start in the body. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 16:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I thought that the additional detail was already in the body text (as I said above). SPECIFICO talk 17:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x Removed my contribution to the body of the article on grounds that it was "way too much detail." I completely disagree. My edit only added four sentences about vital parts of Trump's mass media usage, all properly sourced. –– FormalDude talk 17:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Are there perhaps even better sources, tertiary evaluations perhaps from some of the torrent of books that've come out in the past 12 months? SPECIFICO talk 18:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I had to begin the revert a few times because of edit conflicts, and in the end I wrote the edit summary in a great hurry—apologies for the curt results. For starters, I disagree with making "Relationship with the press" a subsection to "Use of mass media". Trump had a relationship with the press long before social media existed (see laying-of-the-pipes and pouring-or-the-cement ceremonies) but the using went both ways. He wanted the publicity, and the press used him as filler/comic relief. If "media manipulation" needs its own subsection, it should be be part of his relationship with the press/broadcast media. It’s separate from his use of social media which was entirely unfiltered and unchecked by journalists and editors and manipulated the public. The cited NYT article is four years old, and they clarify that news media allowed themselves to be manipulated: 1. Mr. Trump remains a master media manipulator who used his first news briefing since July to expertly delegitimize the news media and make it the story rather than the chaotic swirl of ethical questions that engulf his transition. 2. The news media remains an unwitting accomplice in its own diminishment as it fails to get a handle on how to cover this new and wholly unprecedented president. That's changed somewhat. As for the sources, I find it a bit problematic to cite a book or article based on its summary or abstract. I don’t see what makes Cassam’s opinion quote-worthy (never heard of him or the Nature journal, for that matter). Also, Cassam didn’t say that, Nature paraphrased him. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 08:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Donald trump used the russians to win the election with 1100000 Maxamillianocito ( talk) 08:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It might help if you were more clear, what election and 1100000 whats? Slatersteven ( talk) 08:21, 25 October 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. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 10:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Remove the links from " politician, media personality, and businessman" in the lead sentence as per WP:EGG. Readers, particularly mobile readers, should know what they're clicking on. DeaconShotFire ( talk) 16:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus#Current consensus, item [50]. ValarianB ( talk) 16:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules trump consensus. DeaconShotFire ( talk) 16:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The Manual of Style article on linking says that it "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." We've had three RfCs about the phrasing of the first sentence, which included the links, and a number of discussions about linking. IMO that's reason enough for the application of the "occasional exceptions" and for leaving the sentence alone for a while. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The words "politician", "media personality", and "businessman" don't make it clear enough what the links are nor is it customary to link like this in the lead. Why not link "served" to " Presidency of Donald Trump"? It's equally as clear. Context is still highly important. DeaconShotFire ( talk) 22:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Linking "served" to "Presidency" would also be an EGG where readers might expect a link to Service. Personally, I don't care where these wikilinks go, it's just that linking every other word in the first sentence seems a bit much. We should respect current consensus, though, item 50, which includes the links the current four links. If anyone wants to change it, start a discussion or an RfC. It's been a whole five weeks since the last one :) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

"Linking "served" to "Presidency" would also be an EGG where readers might expect a link to Service."

Yes, that's quite the point I was making.

How is anyone, particularly anyone on a mobile device, going to expect that the word "politician" is going to take them to "Political career of Donald Trump"? DeaconShotFire ( talk) 16:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

They are not asking to remove the words, just the links. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Height: 6′ 3″ Net worth: 2.5 billion USD (2021) 71.241.221.84 ( talk) 09:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Why is is height relevant? Slatersteven ( talk) 09:44, 29 October 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. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 11:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Is there any guideline on which date to use when a source is updated, in some cases several times? I've searched "Help" in vain. This article, for example, was published on July 30, 2020, and updated on August 20. Do we keep the original date or use the date of the last update? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Very good question. Ping me if you ever get an answer. -- Valjean ( talk) 15:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@ Space4Time3Continuum2x: Probably an unhelpful answer, but I remember in HS English class my teacher was telling my class about MLA citation format. She said that we use the date that we saw when we cited the page, not the most recent date. The information cited was current and correct to that revision, but may not be in a later one. Not sure if this is any assistance, I've found the Help desk here to be unhelpful too, lol. Mgasparin ( talk) 08:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

That applies to the access-date= parameter, not the date= parameter. -- Valjean ( talk) 00:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Valjean, I think the teacher meant the cited page's date on the day it was cited, i.e., cite's original date was January 4, student wrote paper on January 5, cite was updated on January 10. Student's paper was correct on January 5 but possibly not after January 10. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, I agree. The student should make sure the date in the access-date= parameter fits the actual date they read the source, and base their paper on the source content on that date. No other dates are relevant in that connection. -- Valjean ( talk) 15:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Mgasparin, thanks. That's pretty much what I remember. I interpret that to mean that if the student cited the page on January 11 they'd use the date of the update. So, basically common sense :) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

BTW, the original question ("Is there any guideline on which date to use when a source is updated...?") is still unanswered. I tried at Help talk:Citation Style 1 and got nowhere. Even they can't agree, and some even got hostile. (I may have made it too complicated.) I think a very specific RfC there about the date=parameter (and only that) might be necessary to solve that problem. -- Valjean ( talk) 15:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I just had a look at that discussion. Oh my! I think I'll just go with common sense. When I add a cite, I use the date of the last update; when I read an updated cite that doesn't support or no longer supports the WP text, I'll update WP and change both date and access-date of the cite or I'll replace the cite. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I propose the lead sentence:

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

be changed to

Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics and characterized as the propaganda technique firehose of falsehood.

• Brian Stelter (November 30, 2020). "'Firehose of falsehood:' How Trump is trying to confuse the public about the election outcome". CNN.
• Maza, Carlos (August 31, 2018). "Why obvious lies make great propaganda". Vox.
• Zappone, Chris (October 12, 2016). "Donald Trump campaign's 'firehose of falsehoods' has parallels with Russian propaganda". The Sydney Morning Herald.
• Harford, Tim (May 6, 2021). "What magic teaches us about misinformation". Financial Times.
• Clifton, Denise (August 3, 2017). "Trump's nonstop lies may be a far darker problem than many realize". Mother Jones.
• "'Morning Joe' Rips Trump for 'Firehose of Falsehoods' and 'Nazi-Like Propaganda' on COVID". TheWrap. December 17, 2020.</ref>

Comments? soibangla ( talk) 00:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Strikes me as UNDUE and not descriptive for most readers. Possibly some other wording about propaganda technique? SPECIFICO talk 02:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

This is WP:UNDUE. I've never even heard the term used towards Trump before. I think it's fine the way it is now. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 02:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

According to the sources you provided, it's a "contemporary form of Russian propaganda known as the 'Firehose of Falsehood'" (quoting Mother Jones). The Rand Corporation calls it The Russian "Firehose of Falsehoods" propaganda model. It doesn't look as though the term caught on for Trump's torrent of lies except for a few comparisons with Russian propaganda. (Financial Times is the only recent source, and it's paywalled so I haven't read it.) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 08:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

UNdue. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Amended version

Not sure where in the article it belongs but the term is very descriptive and useful. Here is a source from 2016 [7]

The only caveat I'd add is that we don't know if Trump was knowingly using this technique, I don't think so.

Amended version:

Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics and likened to the firehose of falsehood propaganda technique.

-- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 12:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I prefer your version. As to whether it's knowing, this isn't him talking but his former chief strategist makes clear it's strategic:

Steve Bannon, once Trump’s chief ideologist, put the matter well earlier this year when he told Michael Lewis, "We got elected on Drain the Swamp, Lock Her Up, Build a Wall," he said. "This was pure anger. Anger and fear is what gets people to the polls.” Bannon added, "The Democrats don’t matter. The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit." [8]

And it was adapted from Putin's propaganda strategy:

Bannon articulated the zone-flooding philosophy well, but he did not invent it. In our time, it was pioneered by Vladimir Putin in post-Soviet Russia. Putin uses the media to engineer a fog of disinformation, producing just enough distrust to ensure that the public can never mobilize around a coherent narrative. [9]

soibangla ( talk) 13:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

That's a good version. -- Valjean ( talk) 15:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

"Likened to" sounds weaselly, and I am not convinced the "firehose" is well-enough known to be referenced in this way in an encyclopedia bio. Maybe there's a way to indicate that Trump executes propaganda techniques without getting into arcane detail. SPECIFICO talk 15:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The original sentence does not need adjusting, this just rings of UNDUE.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose in the lead. It's not a common term (personally I never heard it until just now) and it is not uniquely connected with Trump. Add a sentence to the article text if you want. To the "False statements" subsection, or better yet to the article Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• This is a neologism coined by the Rand Foundation that hasn't caught on. Donald Rumsfeld, who was chairman of the board, used this technique to sell the War in Iraq, before Putin was credited with inventing it. Misinformation was broadcast through major U.S. media on a daily basis. TFD ( talk) 00:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose in the lead and in the body. The term hasn't caught on, and the concept is pretty well-known (repeat a lie often enough, and enough people will believe it—the "I heard that before, must be true" effect or something along those lines). It's sometimes referred to as a "torrent of falsehoods" but I don't see that either term adds useful information to "unprecedented" or the number 30,573. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  In fact the well-known concept you describe - "repeat a lie often enough, and enough people will believe it" - is already being consistently applied to Trump's claims under the term The Big Lie. That term is already used in this article and in Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. No need for this little-known, Johnny-come-lately of a term. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose in lead and the body. The term is just not used abundantly enough in relation to Trump to appear in this article. An inclusion over at Veracity of statements by Donald Trump might be appropriate. Here it's certainly not warranted in the lead and probably not in the body. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 02:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support in the body only. Sources show that an important part of Trump's presidency is his use of propaganda techniques. –– FormalDude talk 08:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

One of the most biased pages on Wikipedia. "Ranked among the worst presidents" is wholly inappropriate for someone who hasn't even been out of office for a year — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alec935 ( talk • contribs) 08:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

There should be mention of criminal justice reform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alec935 ( talk • contribs) 09:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Re this revert [10] — According to the edit summary, something like this was rejected in the past. Could anyone give me an idea of why it was? Bob K31416 ( talk) 16:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Because we go with what RS say, and Trump is not an RS. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I doubt that was the reason for rejecting it in the past because the RS was [11], not Trump. Anyone else? Bob K31416 ( talk) 16:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The source you cited fact-checked something Biden said during the campaign (Trump has "yet once to condemn white supremacy, the neo-Nazis"). The source says that Trump was criticized for saying "very fine people on both sides", exactly what the WP sentence says. WP's sentence doesn’t mention the KKK, neo-nazis, or white supremacists. Neither did Trump when he made the "very fine people" statement. The "clarification" came two days later (also per your cited source), after Trump had been criticized in news media and even by allies like Lindsay Graham, and reporters kept hammering him about it. A few more factchecks: PolitiFact, WaPo, USA Today.

I was about to revert your edit myself but another editor was faster. The Racial views section has been discussed many times—just scroll back through the last 70 archives or so. Long story short: "Trump said"—well, he would, wouldn’t he, to quote WP:MANDY Rice-Davies whom I didn’t know until recently (and I know it’s an essay and not a WP guideline, and I don’t care because it’s common sense). The second sentence of the section says that Trump has repeatedly denied being racist and then quotes him directly with "I am the least racist person there is anywhere in the world." And then he continued to say, tweet, and do things many people consider racist, followed by a denial/strong denial/very strong denial, rinse and repeat. We do not need to mention every denial. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 10:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

If there was criticism of Trump's explanation, then both Trump's explanation and the criticsm should be in the article. Otherwise important information for understanding the situation is suppressed and it would be an example of biased editing and harm the credibility of this article and the reputation of Wikipedia. Bob K31416 ( talk) 11:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Only if RS report it, not quote him report that he had denied meaning the KKK or white supremacists. I note the WP source does inf act call Trumps denial BS. So indeed if we use that source we can say "trump denied he meant white supremacists, but this denial was shown to be flawed". Slatersteven ( talk) 11:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

As a starting point, here's the item regarding his explanation.

Trump said that "very fine people" wasn't referring to white supremacists and neo-Nazis, and he referred to the KKK, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists as criminals and thugs. ^[1]

To this, various editors who are critical of Trump's explanation and other information that appeared in the given RS can add RS criticsm. Bob K31416 ( talk) 11:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

"Some have argued that explanation doesn’t hold up, because Trump referred in that statement to a protest “the night before” when — it was widely reported — white nationalists burned tiki torches and chanted anti-Semitic and white nationalist slogans. We’ll leave it to readers to make up their minds on Trump’s remarks,", this only fact checks Biden claim Trump has never condemned white supremacists (read WP:SYNTHESIS}. Again it's not he denied it, it's also a fact his denial has also been questioned. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The RS is titled " Trump Has Condemned White Supremacists", and the excerpt you gave is about Trump. So I don't think you have a valid argument that the article is not about Trump. Bob K31416 ( talk) 19:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Bob, the flag-waving "harm the reputation of Wikipedia" mom-and-apple-pie rings hollow here. If you cannot demonstrate wide RS coverage that took Trump's "clarification" at face value, then this content is undue or downright misleading. It would take a much-expanded version to contextualize the attempted revisioni and glossing-over of his first declaration of support for the white supremecists, and this article is not the place for that. As you should be aware, these watery revisions and wink-wink denials are part of Trump's longstanding communications style. SPECIFICO talk 13:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Here's an example of how RS criticism of Trump's explanation can be included. I'm not saying it's best, just giving an example.

Trump said that "very fine people" wasn't referring to white supremacists and neo-Nazis, and he referred to the KKK, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists as criminals and thugs. However, in the original statement Trump referred to a protest the night before where white nationalists burned torches and chanted racist slogans. ^[1]

Bob K31416 ( talk) 20:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

No, we already knew that. There would need to be a discussion of his use of these "clarifications" to disarm those who (sorry, like you,) know of his dogwhistle messages but do not wish to acknowledge them for how they are understood by the overwhelming majority of mainstream media, academic, and analysts writings. SPECIFICO talk 21:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Anyone else care to comment? Bob K31416 ( talk) 21:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with SPECIFICO. Needs wider RS coverage. –– FormalDude talk 02:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO your tone is rude. Could you please give a reliable source that describes Trump "fine people" comments as "dogwhistle messages"? -- Pakbelang ( talk) 08:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Should we change how the article conveys Trump calling white supremacists "very fine people"?

If Trump has clarified his "very fine people" statement & we've a reliable source for it? Then, indeed add it. GoodDay ( talk) 23:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. TFD ( talk) 01:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Trump said it, then he "clarified", then he backtracked to "very fine people" in his—uh—infrastructure speech ( Atlantic). If you want to add all the clarifications and reversions, we might as well add a new paragraph "Support for and from the far-right", add the stuff about Duke ("don't know him"), "stand back and stand by" ("don't know who the Proud Boys are") ( USA Today), etc. ( LA Times). Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 09:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@ GoodDay: Perhaps you'd like to describe what changes you're proposing specifically? May make it easier for other editors to weigh in. –– FormalDude talk 02:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

It's Bob's proposal. GoodDay ( talk) 02:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

So the proposal is adding:

Trump said that "very fine people" wasn't referring to white supremacists and neo-Nazis, and he referred to the KKK, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists as criminals and thugs.

Correct? –– FormalDude talk 02:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe so. GoodDay ( talk) 02:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Then we would also need the fact that RS have called this clarification BS. Moreovoer WWE do not say he said they were, we said RS accused him of doing it. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I gave an example of such an edit in the previous section:

Trump said that "very fine people" wasn't referring to white supremacists and neo-Nazis, and he referred to the KKK, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists as criminals and thugs. However, in the original statement Trump referred to a protest the night before where white nationalists burned torches and chanted racist slogans. ^[1]

I got the idea from an excerpt you presented. Bob K31416 ( talk) 15:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but RS say his clarification does not add up, if we give his view we have to give RS voes on his view. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried that in the above example. Could you give an excerpt from an RS that is along the lines you're thinking of so it can be used? Bob K31416 ( talk) 15:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

How about the WP source "But that’s wrong. There were white supremacists. There were counterprotesters. And there were heavily armed anti-government militias who showed up on Saturday.". Slatersteven ( talk) 16:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

...and the link to whatever RS that excerpt was from? Bob K31416 ( talk) 16:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Its already here, read the sources people have already posted here. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Anyone else? Bob K31416 ( talk) 16:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/08/very-fine-people-charlottesville-who-were-they-2/. Just googled the quote. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 17:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Bob K31416 ( talk) 20:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

That excerpt, "But that's wrong..." taken in context says Trump was wrong when he said that there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. Is this what should be put in as criticism, along with the original edit proposal? Bob K31416 ( talk) 11:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

These "clarifications" have been discussed many times on this and other articles. The consensus has repeatedly been not to elevate these manipulative WP:MANDY revisions on a par with the widely covered primary statements. At the least it would take an RfC to make any change along the lines proposed here. SPECIFICO talk 03:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you give a link to a discussion? Bob K31416 ( talk) 15:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

No. You're an experienced edtor. If you want to parachute into a very highly edited article to insist on a controversial reversal of longstanding content, you can very well search the talk and article archives for yourself. Or you can recede and take up more constructive suggestions. SPECIFICO talk 15:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Anyone else care to give a link? Bob K31416 ( talk) 16:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

How about a link to the last time someone tried to add "balance" to that sentence, with the same FactCheck.org cite you used, and was reverted? It was on January 27, 2021. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 20:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC) Here's another link, from a day later. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 20:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Bob K31416 ( talk) 21:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The reverting editor criticized the edit, the usatoday source, but not the factcheck.org source. Bob K31416 ( talk) 10:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Anyone care to give a link to a discussion? Bob K31416 ( talk) 10:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Bob K31416 Please see the extensive discussion at Talk:Unite the Right rally. I find the consensus there to be fairly balanced and reflective of RS. Pakbelang ( talk) 06:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Bob K31416 ( talk) 13:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Note linking to another Wikipedia article's section that discusses in detail Trump's Charlottesville remarks

I made an edit [12] that was reverted [13]. It's a note that contains a link to the following section in Wikipedia: Unite_the_Right_rally#President_Trump's_statements. The section is a detailed discussion of Trump's remarks about the rally.

My edit summary said, "added note with link to section with detailed discussion of Trump's comment, otherwise the reader would most likely not know about it." The reverting edit summary said, "Readers will see it if they're interested enough to follow the link to the article on the rally" Readers wouldn't follow the link to the article and find the section if they didn't know the section was there. Here's what the note said, "See the section President Trump's statements for a detailed discussion of Trump's statements about the rally."

Maybe the most efficient way to handle this is to ask: Is there anyone here who supports the edit that adds the note? Bob K31416 ( talk) 19:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The most efficient will be to drop all this discussion, which has increasingly taken the form of a one-way insistence against and longstanding consensus and the current reaffirmation of same. SPECIFICO talk 20:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Citing a chimerical "consensus" without any objective agreement on how one would measure such unanimity is a form of bludgeoning, where you constitute the unitary arbiter of such matters. I among many others agree with the proposed edit that has been reverted, whose inclusion you inacurrately describe as the result of a "one-way instance". It is Wikipedia policy to "include those facts that are of historical, societal, scientific, intellectual or academic significance". Including the widely-reported (in credible sources) fact of the ex-president's objection to having been characterized as having called neo-Nazis and the KKK as "very fine people" reaches the standardly-agreed upon threshold of evidentiary notability and significance. - 2603:8000:103:881B:6D35:A480:EE61:E3AC ( talk) 10:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment but see no need for a 'remark'. What I would do is wiki-link "Trump's comment" to Unite the Right rally#Third statement. starship .paint ( exalt) 02:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 02:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Shame it's been reverted already, that section ( Unite the Right rally#Third statement) is nearly 1,800 words long, exceeding the WP:DYK minimum character limit for new articles over 7 times. starship .paint ( exalt) 03:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@ SPECIFICO: thoughts on the wikilink? Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 03:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

It's actually more important to link to Unite the Right rally#Third statement than Unite the Right rally, because this article focuses on his statement on the rally. He didn't even attend the rally, so the focus on the rally itself is secondary to his statement. starship .paint ( exalt) 08:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

A link to a section of another article is very unusual. This article needs to provide a summary of fact and context as described by the weight of RS. That link is only confusing and diffuses the issue rather than focusing and summarising it. A link to the entire event is fine. The link I reverted is not. And Bob has disregarded BRD, falsely claimed that the link was endorsed on talk, and reinstated it without consensus. It should be removed and reinstated only if we reach consensus for it here on talk. I've addressed this behavior with Bob on his talk page. SPECIFICO talk 15:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I don't believe that was a BRD violation. It was Starship who initially added the link. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Right, not a 24-BRD DS violation. Just a violation of the general BRD norm that most experienced editors respect and follow. SPECIFICO talk 16:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

The part about section links is not true. They're all over the place, including about 18 others in this article alone. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 16:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Should have been more clear. It was too narrow. SpaceX offered a much better link, which we may end up agreeing on here. SPECIFICO talk 16:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean. The target was a subsection of a subsection after all. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 16:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Trump’s initial statement at Bedminster (we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides) two hours after the homicide was critized as spreading blame to "many sides" and "false equivalency". Two days later, he read a "conciliatory statement" at the WH, then tweeted an attack on the African-American head of Merck,who resigned from the American Manufacturing Council in protest of Trump’s remarks, and later attacked the "#FakeNewsMedia" in another tweet. The next day at the infrastructure speech at Trump Tower, he doubled down on his initial "many sides" statement with "very fine people, on both sides".

I just added the initial plural-s to Trump's comments and his remarks two hours after the vehicular homicide at the rally ("We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides.") which were also widely criticized. I also changed the wikilink from the third statement to all of Trump's comments. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC) I just removed the link pending further discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, it looks like you support adding the link Trump's comments. Bob K31416 ( talk) 16:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Haven't made up my mind—a link right before another, rather long link (" Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia") is overlinking, IMO. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I think some infrequent duplicate linking to provide helpful context is excusable. To be clear, this is an opinion, as this situation doesn't appear to be mentioned at all at MOS:OVERLINK. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 19:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Links competing with each other for user attention (last sentence of first paragraph)? Do we need both, and, if not, which one is more helpful for the reader's understanding? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

If we decide only one link is appropriate, probably the section link is more relevant. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 19:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

We just have to look at the article's lead to see that links in the vicinity of each other has not been considered a problem. Also, I agree that the section link is more important because the paragraph is about Trump's remarks. Bob K31416 ( talk) 20:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

No, we don't cherrypick crude irrelevant analogous examples. Otherwise we would have to evaluate all the instances of text for which there might have been similar overlinking but for which it was not done. So let's discuss the merits, please. The wider context of the entire page link is better. For this article (Trump's bio} the noteworthy and significant factor in the rally was -- wait for it -- Trump's reaction. So the link to the entire article allows our readers to digest the entire context and the section header in the subsidiary article lets them skip to Trump's statements. It is not as if we were to link to an article on mammals when we are intending to refer to squirrels. SPECIFICO talk 20:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Re "the noteworthy and significant factor in the rally was -- wait for it -- Trump's reaction" — That's what the section link goes to. Bob K31416 ( talk) 23:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Now please respond to my argument as to why the full-article link is better. SPECIFICO talk 00:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I think my last message refuted what you had to say. Bob K31416 ( talk) 00:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

No. You repeated what I said. You do not appear to be understanding the issue, so I will not address you further. SPECIFICO talk 00:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the section link proposal. Incidentally, Trump's comments on Charlotteville arguably qualify for a stand-alone article. Joe Biden cited them as the main reason he decided to stand for president. Pakbelang ( talk) 06:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Have ya'll come to a settlement? GoodDay ( talk) 18:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• We quote the Trump comments that were widely critized, and we cite the sources with the details of the criticism. I think the link to the rally page is more helpful to provide context for readers not familiar with or even aware of the events (nazi salutes and imagery, racist and antisemitic chants, armed military militia groups, a vehicular homicide). Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 20:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• i agree. The reader needs the entire context to understand Trump's two apparently disparate statements. SPECIFICO talk 20:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The section link is to inform the reader of the detailed discussion of Trump's remarks in Wikipedia. All we need to do is take what is already in the text, "Trump's comments", and make it a wikilink, " Trump's comments". Nothing else. Bob K31416 ( talk) 21:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Trump did not start the child separation policy that was Obama please correct this information. 2601:152:4300:9AF0:DC41:C1E:6D16:401B ( talk) 05:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The article does not state that Trump started the child separation policy. –– Formal ^talk 05:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, the claim that Obama started or did the same child separation policy as Trump is rated "misleading" by FactCheck.org here. –– Formal ^talk 05:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to The God Emperor of Mankind has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It states that President Trump, did not condemn the KKK, However source 200 is about him denouncing them. Meow-moo2 ( talk) 18:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Meow-moo2, "The God Emperor of Mankind"? –  Muboshgu ( talk) 18:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

"during his campaign" and that he "after a public uproar, he disavowed Duke and the Klan". So yes we do say he went on to condemn then. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Text says Trump helped bring far-right fringe ideas, beliefs, and organizations into the mainstream, ^[1] pandered to white supremacists, ^[2] retweeted racist Twitter accounts, ^[3] and repeatedly refused to condemn David Duke, the Ku Klux Klan or white supremacists. ^[4] After a public uproar, he disavowed Duke and the Klan. ^[5] That seems proper. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 18:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Under foreign policy section I suggest adding the remarks of former president Donald Trump with Ari Hoffman on America's first conservative talk radio station, 570 KVI, which happened on Friday on 10/29/2021, and in which the former president said "Well, you know the biggest change I've seen in Congress is Israel literally owned Congress – you understand that, 10 years ago, 15 years ago – and it was so powerful, it was so powerful, and today it's almost the opposite. Israel had such power – and rightfully – over Congress, and now it doesn't. It's incredible, actually." ^[1] MYS1979 (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Trumps

@ MYS1979:, he did say that. Why should we add it, though? –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Muboshgu: Thank you for concurring that he did say that and for posting the question of why the former president's comment that "Israel literally owned Congress" is relative to fit this article's paragraph about Trumps foreign policies towards Israel. The short answer it's only natural and extremely relevant to the topic. The longer answer is it's not important whether his statement is true or false (Personally I think it's false), but what is important is that he thinks that way, and it matters even more when you consider that while he was under congress/senate impeachment proceedings where he needed every legislative vote he can muster he took many unparalleled steps towards Israel, to name some

• Recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel
• Recognizing the Golan heights as part of Israel
• Withdrawing from the Iranian nuclear deal
• Assassinating the Iranian General Soleimani
• Reversing course on the legality of Israeli settlements in the west bank
• Cutting ties and funding with the Palestinian authority
• Withdrawing from UNRWA and UNESCO
• Adding Israel as a country of birth on American passports for those born in Jerusalem reversing supreme court ruling of Zivotofsky v Kerry

Let me know if you need any references to any of the points above, I will be more than happy to provide them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MYS1979 ( talk • contribs)

MYS1979, please take care to only add your own comments without altering the text of other user's comments. When adding your reply above (see this edit), you also added a bunch of weird formatting in the previous section. Zaathras ( talk) 21:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Zaathras for your feedback. I believe that was done unintentionally, as I checked the page to edit it and took long time doing so, meanwhile other edits where being made so when I applied my changes it overwrote these new edits, will be more careful in the future 47.187.39.94 ( talk) 17:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

If I recall, a year ago, we decided that on American politician bios infoboxes, we wouldn't show the successors-to-be, until they took office. AFAIK, @ Therequiembellishere: may have missed that consensus. I'm bringing it here, because this is the article where (if memory serves correct) the consensus began. See Ralph Northam and Justin Fairfax for examples, of a little disagreement between myself & he. GoodDay ( talk) 23:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure where consensus started forming, but the RfC was held at the Village pump. You can also point people toward the Template:Infobox officeholder documentation itself. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 00:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Would appreciate it, if you'd explain this to Therequiembellishere. He & I don't always see eye-to-eye. GoodDay ( talk) 00:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

What do you all think of any of the post-presidency content being mentioned in the lead? Considering the fact that it has it's own section, I feel it at least warrants a sentence or two in like the last lead paragraph under WP:DUE. I made an edit not too long ago mentioning how he has remained politically active including holding rallies and making endorsements, but it was reverted. Just thought a discussion might come up with some ideas. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 05:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: For reference, this diff was Iamreallygoodatchecker's edit to the lede:

  Following his presidency, Trump has remained politically involved, including holding rallies and endorsing political candidates.

  –– FormalDude ^talk 05:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for providing that edit I was to lazy yesterday to find. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 03:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• I'd support adding something that mentions that Trump is still politically active, and possibly the fact that he is the current 2024 republican frontrunner too. –– FormalDude ^talk 05:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Something like the original edit or the actual edit looks OK, with something along the lines of the following excerpt from the post-presidency section,"Since leaving the presidency, Trump has been the subject of several probes into both his business dealings and his actions during the presidency." Bob K31416 ( talk) 15:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Any mention would need to desctribe the unconventional form of his continuing political activity. SPECIFICO talk 16:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• I wouldn't bother adding anything, until he announces his bid for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. Right now, it's just CNN continuing their obsessive coverage of him. GoodDay ( talk) 17:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• I don't think there is anything that needs to be noted at the moment. 2024 is a fair way away.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 00:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• I think we're good for now. It's been less than 10 months since Trump left office. Other former POTUSes build presidential libraries and podcast with Springsteen, Trump's on a golden-oldies tour for his fans, getting his adulation fix for playing his greatest "stolen election, deep state, socialist, CRT" hits and telling the fans to vote for the candidates who have most sucked up to him. He doesn't appear to spend PAC money on them, so that's the kind of support any popular influencer on social media gives, and he hasn't declared his candidacy, so we don't know what he's hoarding the money for (legal fees, pay for venues (maybe, eventually) and plane rentals?). Current RS coverage of Trump is mostly about more information being uncovered about his term in office. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 21:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

"At least twenty-six women have publicly accused Trump of sexual misconduct as of September 2020, including his then-wife Ivana." President Trump has not been married to Ivana for 29 years. It is difficult to understand what that sentence is conveying. Easeltine ( talk) 07:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Easeltine: I've changed it to "ex-wife." –– Formal ^talk 07:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I assume "then-wife" was supposed to convey that she accused him of having raped her while they were married—something to do with a scalp reduction to remove a bald spot on his dome. Ivana recommended her plastic surgeon who botched the job, Trump got mad and took it out on Ivana, allegedly. She retracted and got a hefty divorce settlement or was supposed to get it, but the bankruptcies got in the way. (It's been a loooong six years since 2015.) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 21:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@ FormalDude: - see above - your change now fails to describe that she accused him when they were married, in fact it seems to imply the opposite - that she accused him after they divorced. starship .paint ( exalt) 06:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I've often found the "then-" prefex to be un-needed. The time period should dictate the usage. For example: "In 1951, US President Harry S. Truman, went for a walk", which reads correctly. Where's "In 1951, then-US President Harry S. Truman, went for a walk", just reads odd. GoodDay ( talk) 21:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• I removed the Ivana bit altogether since she withdrew the allegation in 2015 ( source). I don't think it's due weight. –– Formal ^talk 06:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I should have specified that she disavowed the term "rape" when Hurt's book was published in 1993 and then described the incident as having "marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage." She didn't walk back how she had described the incident earlier, i.e., that he threw her on the bed, yanked out her hair, ripped off her clothes, and had "marital relations" with her. The publisher pasted her statement on the flyleaf of the book, preceded by a notice to the reader saying that the "statement by Ivana Trump does not contradict or invalidate any information contained in this book, and it is included here only to give full expression to differing points of view on an important event." ( I have a "First Edition"—three bucks, used.) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC) Amazon has a preview of the Kindle edition. If you scroll down, you get the full description of the liposuction, head-shrinking, medical-grade tattooing, and the marital relations. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I like the current wording. –– Formal ^talk 22:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• I think then-wife might be the best phrasing. Ex-wife isn't precise enough in getting the point across that they were married at the time; it leaves a certain degree of ambiguity. While I agree with GoodDay's assertion that the "then-" suffix is usually un-needed, in some specific cases, such as this one, it conveys a meaning. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 04:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "Then" is factually incorrect as she wasn't his wife then (September 2020). If it were saying that he was accused in 19XX (don't remember the exact year) by his then-wife, that would be correct. -- Khajidha ( talk) 12:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

    @ Khajidha: The wording of the sentence has been changed from "As of September 2020" to "Since the 1970s". I still think "then-wife" is confusing. If there really needs to be clarification we could say "wife at the time". –– FormalDude ^talk 12:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

    Both "then-wife" and "wife at the time" have the same problem. You have to mention the actual time in question. If ether were to be added to the current formulation, the mention of "since the 1970's" would imply that she was his wife during that entire time. In either case you would need to say something like what I said above. "Since the 1970s, at least twenty-six women, including an accusation in 19__ by his then-wife Ivana". -- Khajidha ( talk) 12:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

She was married to Trump from 1977 to 1990. The "marital relations" happened in late October or early November 1989, Ivana mentioned the incident during the divorce proceedings, and the divorce was granted in December 1990 "in a hearing at which State Supreme Court Justice Phyllis Gangel-Jacob cited cruel and inhuman treatment by Mr. Trump as grounds for granting Mrs. Trump's divorce plea." She was his wife in 1989 and 1990, so "then-wife" applies in either case. I don't really see the necessity for adding an accusation in 19__ by to the sentence. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 21:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC) We don't really need As of the 1970s, either. If any other women come forward, we can change the number. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 21:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Since the time period is specified as "since the 1970s", the phrase "then-wife" means that she was his wife during the entire time from the 1970s until the source was written. The source was written in 2020. As she was no longer married to Trump after 1990, she cannot be described as his "then-wife" for that time period. What you appear to try to be saying is that Ivana made the accusations while she was his wife. But that is not what was written. -- Khajidha ( talk) 15:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't quite follow your reasoning but decided to remove the term and, while I was at it, the year and the first name, and simply leave At least twenty-six women, including his first wife, have publicly accused ..., just the bare bones for his top biography. In the first sentence we say "has a history" without specifying a time period. I don't think it's necessary to specify a time period here, either, and the name of the first wife is mentioned in the infobox and the "Family" section. Using the first name feels a bit condescending to me. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 22:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a separate and independent matter from the alleged Russian bounties, which has evolved into an RfC. Russian involvement in Afghanistan since 2014 and increasing support of the Taliban during the Trump administration has not been discussed on the Talk page, so I’m putting it up for discussion here. Previous objections to the new material were SYNTH and BLP violation (both unexplained), and "needs to wait for resolution on bounties". Whether or not the text on the alleged bounties is retained does not affect this separate matter. Recapping the edit history on Russian support, pinging all editors involved:

• I added nor their support of the Taliban with weapons, supplies, money, and propaganda, with a reliable source (NBC, see below), to the article here. My edit was reverted here by Tobby72 with an edit summary calling my edit "SYNTH and BLP violation". After the reversion was reverted by Zaathras with the edit summary "neither synth nor blp issue", I asked Tobby72 on the Talk page to explain what was SYNTH and/or a BLP violation. They did not respond.
• The text was again removed here with the same "SYNTH and BLP violation" edit summary, restored here with the edit summary "neither synth nor blp issue", reverted here by OgamD218 with the erroneous edit summary "take back to ongoing talk page discussion", restored by ValarianB here, reverted by Bob K31426 here, restored here, and reverted here.

While Russian and U.S. interests in Afghanistan were initially "largely aligned" after 2001 (routing "al Qaeda and its affiliated terrorist groups and prevent[ing] Afghanistan from once again becoming a haven for terrorists"), Russia began providing "financial and military support for the central government, power brokers in the north, and the Taliban" when relations between the U.S. and Russia deteriorated after the annexation of Crimea. General John W. Nicholson Jr., who commanded allied forces in Afghanistan from 2016–2018, said in March 2018 that Russia was "supporting and even supplying arms to the Taliban" and that "he'd seen 'destabilising activity by the Russians.'" He also said that the destabilizing activities had picked up within the past 18 to 24 months. The 2020 NBC source says that Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, commander of U.S. Central Command, told reporters this week. "And [the Russians] are not our friends in Afghanistan. And they do not wish us well." If Trump agrees, he hasn't said so. Instead, he has praised Putin and called for Russia to re-join the Group of Seven (G7) nations … Three retired generals who served in the chain of command over the war in Afghanistan told NBC News they saw indications Russia was supplying weapons, money, supplies and, on occasion, even transport to Taliban fighters as far back as 2016. … US officials repeatedly have discussed Russia's general support for the Taliban in Congressional testimony and other public statements--and have sent that intelligence up the chain of command.. ^{[1] [2] [3]} I believe the information is reliably sourced and important enough to be included in the article. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I am unsure this is specially a problem with Trump. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Are there any sources saying that it was a big problem before Trump took office or that Obama publicly lauded Putin/Russia? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe not a big problem, but it was there https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/taliban-gain-putins-help-at-secret-meeting-md9lbkhvl2h. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a subscription to the Times, so I can only see the top three paragraphs that say "a Taliban commander claimed". Does the rest of the article say whether the Times followed up on the claim? If there was large-scale support and it was ignored by the Obama administration, then a mention on Obama's article might be justified but, either way, it doesn't absolve Trump. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

MAybe you can read this source https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/614710/Islamic-State-ISIS-Vladimir-Putin-Russia-Syria-Taliban. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, your two edits ( removing the comma and deleting "many as") changed the meaning of Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist, and many as misogynistic. The consensus (item 51) was to add a sentence stating that many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as misogynistic. The options were two separate sentences or a compound sentence with a FANBOY coordinating conjunction. I chose the latter and then removed some words from the second sentence that were not necessary for it to be understood (see ellipsis) because two sentences starting with Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as were rather clunky. Your removal of the comma and the two additional words turned the compound sentence into a simple one stating that his comments/actions were racially charged/racist and misogynistic which was the case sometimes but not always. BTW, weren't you one of the editors opposed to combining racism and misogyny in the same sentence ? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 21:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Yea that's my mistake; grammar is not my favorite subject. I don't recall what I advocated for in an earlier discussion, but it doesn't make much of a difference to me if it's a separate sentence or a compound sentence. I think it's good the way it is now. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 22:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

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

"Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents"....where's the reference for this? This page is chalk full of political biases that you left-wing editors are trying to pass off as impartial. I read where WP does not consider Fox News a reliable source, yet CNN and MSNBC, Axios (seriously Axios), CBS, PBS, NBC, Vox, Vice, The Atlantic, WaPo, NYT, HuffPo, and on and on, are all considered legit, never mind the fact they all have severe left-wing biases. Is WP really that afraid of conservative opinion? You guys aren't even citing this page, just writing whatever crap you can think of, and should you happen to cite something it comes from a left-wing source with no mention of a counter-point other serious, legitimate journalists have made. How can people believe anything WP writes? Can't wait to see how rosy the Joe Biden page is....I wonder if you've even covered his health issues, or how badly he botched the withdrawal from Afghanistan (probably a passing reference to this), or how the economy is in tatters due to his policies, or how crime is increasing at astronomical rates, or how the crisis at the border is growing worse by the day, or how he has failed to end the pandemic as he promised he would do within the first few months of his presidency. 23.31.83.54 ( talk) 23:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The sourcing will be found in Donald_Trump#Approval_ratings. The lead of an article is introductory, and generally does not need a lot of citations, as it is just an intro for content found later on. Zaathras ( talk) 23:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

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

In the third paragraph of this page, the claims that the editor(s) are making are both unfounded and unsupported. If they are going to make the claim that Donald Trump triggered a trade war with China due to the tariffs he imposed, they should either detail the agreement and the conditions of said tariffs or remove the claim completely, as it is an unsupported, politicized claim. Also, in the fourth paragraph, it states that Donald Trump instigated the events on January 6th, which is also unsupported and false, and if you want a source, look at the Senate hearings and the dropped impeachment charges pertaining to this particular incident. This is one of many politicized, unfounded, and plainly unsupported claims in this article that either need to be supported by reliable, non-politicized sources or removed from the article entirely. Ppsucky ( talk) 19:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{ edit extended-protected}} template. BSMRD ( talk) 19:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Is Wikipedia openly trying to be a left-wing news source? The way President Trump is portrayed in just the few opening paragraphs is wholly inaccurate and blanketly political. "He reacted slow to the COVID-19 pandemic" is pure opinion, yet Wikipedia is trying to pass it as fact. Thousands of school children of all ages to turn this information source on a daily basis, and it seems the editors of this encyclopedia want to use that exposure to further their own agendas. This is what every tyrannical government in history strived for, the control of information. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro (just a few mass murderer tyrants of the last century) would be proud. You're propaganda machine is exceptional.... 23.31.83.54 ( talk) 22:44, 2 December 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. BSMRD ( talk) 22:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)