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.

I have rewritten the lead in a way that I don't think needs any citations, and is less controversial. I tried to keep everything in there, and not take anything out (unless it was absolutely necessary, in the case of redundancy and stuff).

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.

Trump graduated from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania with a bachelor's degree in 1968. He became president of his father Fred Trump's real estate business in 1971 and renamed it The Trump Organization. Trump expanded the company's operations to building and renovating skyscrapers, hotels, casinos, and golf courses. He later started side ventures, mostly by licensing his name. From 2004 to 2015, he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice. Trump and his businesses have been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, including six bankruptcies.

Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist. He won the 2016 United States presidential election as the Republican nominee against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, while losing the popular vote, becoming the fifth U.S. president to win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote, and he became the first U.S. president with no prior military or government service. The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign, but not it was not able to find evidence that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russian election interference activities. Trump's election and policies sparked numerous protests. Trump made many false and misleading statements, promoted conspiracy theories, during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics, and his election and policies sparked numerous protests. and promoted conspiracy theories. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged, racist, or misogynistic and many as misogynistic.

Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries. He diverted funding toward building a wall on the U.S.–Mexico border that was designed to limit illegal immigration, and implemented a policy of family separations for apprehended migrants. 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. He appointed 54 federal appellate judges and three United States Supreme Court justices. In foreign policy, Trump pursued an America First agenda. He withdrew the U.S. from pulled the U.S. out of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. He initiated a trade war with China, that negatively impacted the U.S. economy which impacted the U.S. economy negatively. Trump met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un three times, but made no progress on denuclearization. but was unable to progress toward the denuclearization of North Korea. He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, His reaction to and handling of the COVID-19 pandemic was widely criticized, as he often ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials many times in his messaging, promoted enabling, and in some cases promoting the dissemination of misinformation unproven, contradictory and/or false information about unproven treatments for the virus and the need for testing.

Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden, but refused to concede, falsely claiming widespread electoral fraud and attempting to overturn the results by pressuring government officials, mounting scores of unsuccessful legal challenges, and obstructing the presidential transition. On January 6, 2021, Trump urged his supporters to march to the Capitol in protest of the election, which they then attacked, resulting in multiple deaths and interrupting the electoral vote count.

Trump is the only federal officeholder in American history to have been impeached twice. After he pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden in 2019, he was impeached by the House of Representatives for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in December. The Senate acquitted him of both charges in February 2020. The House of Representatives impeached Trump He was impeached a second time in January 2021, for on the charge of incitement of insurrection. The Senate acquitted him in February, after he had already left office. Trump remains a highly controversial figure—while many scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history, he still has a large following in the United States, and many people believe that he will re-run for re-election in 2024.

What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2ple ( talk • contribs) 20:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Don't really see a benefit of this. ValarianB ( talk) 20:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The benefit is that it feels less biased. 2ple ( talk) 20:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Yea, well, "Facts not feelings" as they say, and what it feels to you isn't relevant. It reads like an OpEd, as others note below. ValarianB ( talk) 13:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it's largely an improvement. It isn't as choppy and confusing. I don't like the use of a dash between "controversial figure" and "while many scholars and historians..." I think separating those sentences would help.

I don't think this eliminates the need for citations. It does read as marginally less biased, but people will still complain. But I do think this is an improvement on what is there. ~ ONUnicorn^{( Talk| Contribs)} problem solving 20:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

If it must be either/or, I'd relent and support citations on the current version. Rather than this watered-down, make-everyone-feel-better one. Zaathras ( talk) 23:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

That is contrary to eveything we try to do with our articles and their summaries in the leads. And then you let slip what sounds like your underlying motivation -- to give it a POV slant in the name of removing citations. Nonstarter. SPECIFICO talk 23:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I mostly agree with ONUnicorn that this is an improvement, but that we should keep the citations. I do disagree with ONUnicorn about the dash; I would keep the dash. JMM12345 ( talk) 00:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)JMM12345

• Oppose This would be a drastic shift that upends years of established consensus. Firstly, the writer of this text claims it eliminates the need for lead citations, a claim that I disagree with. The discussion of lead citations has been discussed in-depth in the above RfC, and that's where the discussion should be limited too. Furthermore, I don't think changes should be made to the lead in large proposals such as this. Take it one sentence and part at at time. That's been the practice of this talk page for years. I'm not even saying that all these changes are bad, just this is not the way to approach change. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 01:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Feels less biased" is in the eye of the beholder. We can look at the wording of individual sentences. I wouldn't object to adding "of North Korea" to the current sentence (but made no progress on denuclearization of North Korea) but phrasing like "it was not able to find evidence" seems to add bias rather than remove it. How is replacing promoted misinformation about unproven treatments with enabling, and in some cases promoting the dissemination of unproven, contradictory and/or false information about treatments for the virus not hiding any meaning under an avalanche of words, i.e., whitewashing (sources?)? The proposal also ignores Talk:Donald_Trump#Current_consensus items like 49. The proposed last sentence is not supported by the body of the article (sources?), and it reads like an op-ed. "many people believe that he will re-run for re-election in 2024" - WP:NOTNEWS. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  Hmm. Fair points. The motivation behind this sentence—enabling, and in some cases promoting the dissemination of unproven, contradictory and/or false information about treatments for the virus was mainly to take away the word ' misinformation,' as I think it makes the average reader's mind jump straight to ' disinformation,' especially in the case of Trump, but you have a point. I also agree with the fact that that last sentence isn't the best, so remove that final phrase. The one thing I don't like is the to a degree unprecedented in American politics, but whatever. It's consensus, so whatever. Add it back. And yes, I can see that I was wrong. This clearly does not limit bias, nor does it eliminate the need for citations. What I do think it does well is fix some of the choppiness (i.e. the whole fourth paragraph.) 2ple ( talk) 14:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Choppiness is a good word to describe Trump's life and administration . Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics is based on the Donald_Trump#False_statements section which is quite long and has 26 citations. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

When I re-read that section, I realized it uses the word 'disinformation' when referring to Trump's handling of COVID, as opposed to 'misinformation' in the lead. Is this a mistake, or intentional? I would say that most of what Trump said regarding COVID was misinformation, but of course that's my opinion. 2ple ( talk) 18:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The word disinformation appears to be based on one of the two sources for the sentence, USA Today, which cites an analysis published by Harvards's Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society. Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center analyzed 55,000 online media stories, 5 million tweets and 75,000 posts on public Facebook pages with millions of interaction and concluded that Trump and his reelection campaign, using Twitter, press briefings and television interviews, is driving peaks in attention to disinformation around mail-in voting, absentee balloting and election rigging, according to research published last week. We're not using disinformation in the lead, but mentioning the analysis by a renowned research center in the body is in line with WP:WEIGHT, IMO. I just edited the sentence to clarify that disinformation refers to absentee voting. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 11:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

These two sentences state: In 2020, Trump was a significant source of disinformation on mail-in voting and misinformation on the COVID-19 pandemic.

Next sentence:

His attacks on mail-in ballots and other election practices served to weaken public faith in the integrity of the 2020 presidential election, while his disinformation about the pandemic delayed and weakened the national response to it.

The source you gave only talks about misinformation pertaning to mail-in voting, and the two sentences directly contradict each other. Like I said, I would say that most of what Trump said regarding COVID was misinformation, but of course that's my opinion. 2ple ( talk) 14:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The proposed revision is a POV tilt away from an exhaustively discussed and edited NPOV lead text. Please drop it. SPECIFICO talk 14:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, okay. The lead is decidedly not NPOV. I'm not arguing about the content of the lead, which I mostly agree with. I disagree with the wording of the sentences. For example, take the sentence Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history. It should not be, in theory, controversial at all, as it has been internally linked, sourced later in the article, and has been decided upon by consensus. However, it is still is controversial. Why do you think that is? It's because it is worded in a way that I think seems to convey a sort of widespread agreement that Trump is a bad president, which is not necessarily true, IMHO. Take this phrase: He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials in his messaging, and promoted misinformation about unproven treatments and the need for testing. Again, true. It's about the wording. He reacted slowly, I think, makes it seem like he is somehow a 'slow' president (which isn't necessarily untrue, but still). It would be better rewritten, I think, as His reaction to and handling of the COVID-19 pandemic was widely criticized, which I think more accurately describes his reaction.

If you can't see why people don't like the lead, then I don't know what to tell you. Yes, the content is there, but the way it is written kind of pisses me off, and apparently a lot of other people also. So when I say, let's change this, sure there may be consensus as to what needs to be kept, and I don't suggest taking anything out (though I may have inadvertently done so), but I do suggest rewriting it in a way that is more consistent with NPOV. 2ple ( talk) 15:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Pro-tip - if you don't know what to say, please stop saying it. See WP:BLUDGEON. SPECIFICO talk 16:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to do that. 2ple ( talk) 19:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Thats's the exact opposite of what the sources say, i.e., disinformation on absentee/mail-in voting, misinformation on the pandemic. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant disinformation pertaining to mail-in voting. 2ple ( talk) 15:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose on several grounds. The biggest problem by far is the change from He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, a neutral statement of the facts, to His reaction to and handling of the COVID-19 pandemic was widely criticized..., which entirely omits the fact that he reacted slowly (not even including it as part of the WP:WEASELly opinions it reduces the rest of the sentence to!),and which engages in WP:WEASEL / WP:POV wording by attributing factual statements in the sources for the reset of the sentence to vaguely-defined "critics" instead. The addition of in protest of the election is also a serious NPOV violation in that it is, at the very least, certainly not accepted as fact that that protesting was his sole goal. The addition of ...he still has a large following in the United States, and many people believe that he will re-run for re-election in 2024. is, again, speculative, weasely, and vague; additionally, it implicitly weighs the opinions of his "large following" equally to academic experts, which is another NPOV violation. Overall the proposed lead has far more POV problems than the current one. More generally, I'm strenuously opposed to sweeping rewrites to such a controversial lead - there's nothing about any of these suggestions that would require that they be bundled together, so I suggest breaking this down into smaller discussions for individual proposed changes which can then be addressed one at a time. (That said I see little chance of most of the proposed changes achieving a consensus even individually, since they introduce POV problems to a comparatively neutral text - and since the fundamental goal here, if it's trying to "reduce the need for citations", is a clear problem because that means that whether you intend it or not you're moving the lead away from what the sources say.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 03:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Watch 2000 Mules. Trump’s allegations about the election in 2020 being stolen are true. 184.21.136.147 ( talk) 15:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The courts have said it's not, RS have said it's not. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

2000 Mules is so dishonest that Fox News and Newsmax won't run it. Think about that for a moment. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

There's some discussion of this close here. Posting this note for any feedback before filing request for close review. It appears to me that closer did not review the extensive discussion and sourcing spread over multiple threads before this unnecessary and largely ignored, thinly participated RfC. It further disappoints me that closer was unable or unwilling to note the distinction between what Trump doubts and what he says he doubts, a distinction that is widely noted and sourced. SPECIFICO talk 13:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the closing editor added an item to the Current consensus list, #58, that clearly ignores the reasoned and consensus view of this thread to the effect that we cannot state that Trump "had doubts", but at best that he said so after having been challenged repeatedly on his failure to act on what was then-current intelligence information. Not only is this contrary to the consensus of the discussion here, but it the closer also violated the page restriction of 24-hour BRD by reinstating this "consensus" after I reverted it. Having now elaborated somewhat on my removal, per 24-BRD, I am again going to remove it pending resolution and an amendment or close review. The consensus list is not a list of vague agenda items such as what the closer wrote in #58, but is rather a guide to settled questions of specific content, which even the closing editor does not claim to have determined. SPECIFICO talk 17:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to correct the flagrant error above, my close notes that this discussion did not achieve a consensus on a specific way to characterize these doubts, referring to the doubts about the Russian bounty allegations. The claim that closer was unable or unwilling to note the distinction between what Trump doubts and what he says he doubts simply ignores that part of the closing summary—which explicitly notes that the way that the doubts are characterized (i.e. as things Trump says he doubts v.s. things Trump actually doubts) does not have consensus. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 23:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@ Space4Time3Continuum2x: I think you should consider implementing the compromise you proposed in the discussion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 01:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I added it (and did some copy-editing while I was at it). I removed the Politico source because IMO the NYT article is sufficient. Any objections or suggestions, anyone? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I believe your edit reflects the Verified NPOV consensus of the several discussions of this matter. I think that ultimately, as I stated above, this single incident is not really as noteworhty as Trump's general demeanor and words about Putin and Russia. When text is ultimately crafted to convey that, I think several of the periodic controversies-du-jour can be left to the sub-articles. SPECIFICO talk 20:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Y Looks good! Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 04:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

What's the problem folks? Disagreement over how to implement the recently closed RFC? GoodDay ( talk) 21:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes it was. I think it's about been solved at this point. I really hope it is Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 23:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I propose changing the alma mater's parameter from saying " Wharton School (BS Econ.)" to saying " University of Pennsylvania (BS Econ.)". This would be more consistent with most biographical articles. The majority do not say the specific college in the infobox, just the university. For example, Barack Obama's says "Harvard University" rather than "Harvard Law School" which is specifically where he obtained his JD. Same is true for the alma mater parameters of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Joe Biden. It's just the standard practice across most biographies, and I find it puzzling why this page is different. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 05:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

No. Wharton undergrad is not a Penn BA. Its a separate program. SPECIFICO talk 09:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

The difference is the name of the school. It's Harvard College, Yale College, Harvard Law School, Harvard Business School, Yale Law School, etc. Wharton has a different name than the university, for both the undergraduate and the graduate schools. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 10:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Why not simply say Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania which is both its formal title and the title of its Wikipedia article? Needless argument. Goodtablemanners ( talk) 16:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

For the same reason we don't spell out Texas Agricultural & Mechanical University. Needless formality. ValarianB ( talk) 17:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Not linking to the main school is pretty nonsensical. And “BS Econ” is pretty grammatically frustrating. It is a BS in Econ. The way it’s written now seems like a dig at Econ. KidAd • SPEAK 17:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

To ValarianB: Except in the case of Texas Agricultural & Mechanical the title of our article is Texas A&M University whereas in the case of Wharton our title is Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Apparently those who created the Wharton article thought it was better to spell it out. I don't see why four more words would be a problem in an article of several thousand. Goodtablemanners ( talk) 23:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Spelling it out just looks bad in the infobox. Makes it look cluttered. That's really the only compelling reason to not spell the whole thing out. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 01:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The formal title is The Wharton School, and Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia mirrors) in themselves are not reliable sources for any purpose ( WP:WPNOTRS). It’s unclear from their edit histories why the three articles that existed about Wharton in 2003, ( Wharton School of Business, Wharton School, and The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania) were merged into the one with the current name. The name of the school was Wharton School of Finance and Commerce until 1972. It was shortened to Wharton School on May 15, 1972. ^[1] When people say "U Penn’s Wharton School" or add "at the University of Pennsylvania" or "of the University of Pennsylvania", it’s an explanation. Most people understand "university" and "Pennsylvania" without additional information, Wharton not so much. The infobox is already very big, Wharton is shorter than University of Pennsylvania, and we’ve had quite a few discussions to form the current consensus. The name is linked in the infobox per WP:UL, Proper names that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 10:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, the sentence said "hundreds" for a while. It was changed to "thousands" on February 13, and I removed "thousands" on 15 February because the body doesn't mention a number. Whether it was hundreds or thousands depends on the definition of "attack", the ones who entered the building, the screaming mob outside. I don't see any difference in meaning between "then" and "subsequently" but "they then" sounds a bit choppy. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 20:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

My only concern is that "subsequently" does not diirectly connect the attack to the rally at which they were directly tasked with marching up Pennsylvania Ave to the Capitol. Maybe there's a better alternative. SPECIFICO talk 21:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

New sentence:

At a January 6, 2021 political rally on the Ellipse(,) Trump urged his supporters to march to the Capitol, which hundreds of them then attacked, resulting in multiple deaths and interrupting the electoral vote count.

What's wrong with the old sentence:

On January 6, 2021, Trump urged his supporters to march to the Capitol, which they then attacked, resulting in multiple deaths and interrupting the electoral vote count.

On the Ellipse is a trivial fact that isn't important for the lead section. Neither is the fact that it was after a political rally, IMO. Maybe change which they then attacked in the old sentence to which hundreds of them attacked? 2ple ( talk) 00:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Space4Time that the "they then" phrasing just sounded a little odd. There probably is some kind of appropriate alternative. I thought "subsequently" was adequate, and I don't necessarily think it implies there wasn't a connection between the events, but maybe a better alternative exist. The sentence may just need to be rephrased all together. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 00:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

"Next"? I don't think we have the sources (yet) to go with "consequently". McCarthy says: "... I asked him personally today, 'Does he hold responsibility for what happened? Does he feel bad about what happened?' He told me he does have some responsibility for what happened and he needs to acknowledge that." ^[1] Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 11:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't support the use of consequently for the reason you provided. IMO, then is better than next. I believe subsequently is the best option put forward, but reasonable minds differ. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 23:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Should be placed in the Trump administration article. Not his bio. GoodDay ( talk) 22:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

In the third paragraph, the article states that Trump made many false and misleading statements during his presidency, or something along those lines. I suggest that we change that to something along the lines of “Trump made many statements during his presidency that some consider to be false or misleading.” I think this would be a worthwhile change, as it will adhere more to the neutrality policy of Wikipedia while also not making too substantial of a change to the article. Thanks! 2600:8800:E0B:1600:A558:6CA1:BF9B:4450 ( talk) 20:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

See consensus item 49. The current wording is settled consensus. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 20:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

IP2600, you're asking us to violate NPOV. NPOV is mostly about an editorial POV and attitude while editing. It requires editors to edit neutrally. By contrast, it explicitly allows use of non-neutral sources/opinions/wordings. Editors are supposed to document what RS say and not get in the way by neutering, censoring, or otherwise manipulating content to say something different than what the sources say. We are not allowed to change the meaning.

That Trump is a serial liar and usually dishonest is not an opinion. It's a proven fact backed by numbers. If we followed your advice, and he were to say that a red apple was yellow, we would write that some consider him to have lied, which leaves doubt about a bald faced lie. His lies are often of that type.

There is no question, and many professional fact-checkers agree that he sets a rather uniquely shocking record for dishonesty. That's why we describe what RS say about the matter without inserting our own equivocation or doubts. That's what NPOV requires of us. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 20:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Can you please quote the section of the neutrality policy that you think the current wording violates. TFD ( talk) 13:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Where is the history of Donald's extensive connections and involvement with the NYC Mafia, such as boss Fat Tony Salerno, or Trump employee, Felix Slater? There have been a number of reports or articles about it over the years, with a recent refocus of it during his 2015-2016 presidential campaign. Why was this information removed from the article? Did Donald Trump or his associates remove this? I don't remember how developed it was on here, but there is a reasonably extensive history on it, including the federal Grand Jury investigation that was conducted on Donald Trump in the 1990s by the Southern District of NY and quietly dismissed through the influence of his sister, who was employed as an ADA in that office at the time.

Are there other Trump articles (that I am not mentioning or have overlooked) that should be included in a See Also Section? is there a separate Wikipedia article on his personal upbringing, or other aspects of his history?While the articles from Internet 1.0 are likely forever gone from our inclusion here through article/forum scrubbing and media aging, too much seems to be missing from this article, that was once here. It warrants a deeper look into what has been removed and refrabricated, either by Trump devotees or paid editors... Stevenmitchell ( talk) 08:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

While I have certainly read a couple of texts on Trump's mafia connections online, Wikipedia tends to avoid citing allegations due to the policy on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.:

• • "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Dimadick ( talk) 08:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The public usually doesn't find out about Grand Jury investigations that are quietly dismissed. Where did you get this information? According to Trump biographer David Cay Johnston, there was a Grand Jury investigation in Brooklyn concerning the sale of the Penn Central railroad yards to Trump Enterprises, Inc., in 1975 but Johnston doesn't specify the date of the investigation. Maryanne Trump Barry was an ADA and a federal judge in New Jersey, not New York. (Well, there was the 1985 case of the Weichselbaum brothers who lived in NYC (Trump Tower), owned a Florida-based business that provided helicopter services between Manhattan and Trump's Atlantic City casinos, and were accused of drug trafficking from Colombia to Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, and somehow their case ended up before Judge Barry in New Jersey. She recused herself three weeks later because "she had flown in the helicopter of a confessed drug trafficker.") There are or were a few mentions of — let's say — "mob-adjacency" in the articles on some of Trump's buildings, e.g. Trump Tower, and on Trump's lawyer/fixer Roy Cohn, who was also the lawyer of a bunch of mobsters. A number of Trump biographers (Wayne Barrett, Timothy O'Brien, David Cay Johnston, and others) have written about the (alleged) mob connections. Felix Sater may have been mentioned in this article because of Trump's plans to build a Trump Tower in Moscow continuing while he was already running for president in 2015/2016. After Trump became president, current events bloated this article to its present size, and quite a bit of the earlier biography was removed as less important. As Dimadick said, there are also WP:BLP concerns. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

To start off the discussion, here's three sentences that appear to be deserving of a citation, and the sources from the body that best verify them.

1. Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics, ^[1] and promoted conspiracy theories. ^[2]
2. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist, ^[3] and many as misogynistic. ^{[4] [5]}
3. Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history. ^[6]

Since the sources already exist in the body, they'll be easy to duplicate in the lead without adding much size ( example). I do think it's best to start out with only a few citations at first for the most controversial content. –– FormalDude talk 01:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@ FormalDude: that's a good start. I would encourage you to WP:BOLDly implement them. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 01:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Uh - pointing out that there's no consensus on which sentences need citations. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 10:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you're right that "there's no consensus on which sentences need citations," but WP:BOLD still exist. There has yet to be BOLD edit following the consensus to add lead citations. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 02:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't read editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations as meaning "to boldly go" first and then discuss. I'm trying to muster enough energy (and overcome my inner resistance) to go through past archives to look up the sentences that elicited the most whining from SPAs and IP editors, to quote Zaathras, and what reasons, if any, were given. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I would only support a citation for the historical rankings at this time, as that one seems to have elicited the most whining from SPAs and IP editors. Let's start modest and expand if needed. Zaathras ( talk) 02:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• The first step is getting consensus on which sentences need citations, and then finding consensus on which citations are appropriate. We should do this one sentence at a time, or we'll get another endless discussion of the "A/not B/not C, not A/B/not C" type. (IMO, the argument for proposing a sentence in need of a citation ought to be more substantial than "appear to be".) Also, some quibbling on a source. For the second time now, you have You reinserted an abstract of a journal article that I've challenged in the body. It would cost me (and presumable the majority of readers) $40 to purchase, and you’re proposing to use it as a source in the lead for material challenged or likely to be challenged (citing your comment in the RfC). Our lead (summary) needs to repeat citations given in the full text, but I'm supposed to accept an Abstract (summary) of a full text that I can't read for verification of the claims made in the abstract? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 10:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC) My apology for the error. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @ Space4Time3Continuum2x: A source costing money to access does not mean it can't be a usable quality reference. It's a full length article that is available for free to anyone who has access to TWL. It verifies the content reliably–that's what matters. This would also be the first time I've reinserted the source that you challenged (not the second), and I did it because I did not see your challenge. If you want to discuss that further though it should be done outside of this discussion since that source is for the body. Its only relevance to this discussion is as an option of two I provided for sourcing the misogynistic claim in the lede, and that was merely a proposal. Though, it should be fine for the lede for the same reason it is fine for the body.

Also, I disagree with your recommended method for discussing this matter. The lead is based on the body and frequently explicit consensus from the talk page, so it's easy to find what the proper source should be; I don't think we'll find much disagreement on that. We mainly need to focus on deciding what contentious and/or challengable statements should be sourced. –– FormalDude talk 10:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

My bad. I didn’t know that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia by Wikipedia editors for Wikipedia editors. How many members of the general public — bold assumption on my part that that is our intended audience — have access to TWL or easy access through "a local library or university, or another institution or organization"? In order to complete your request, Library Card needs permission to access information about you, including your email address, on all projects of this site. No changes will be made with your account. I looked at the sign-up page and the terms of use and privacy statement, in particular the Important Note, when I got the notification on January 26 and decided against signing up.

Also, huh? The lead is based on the body and frequently explicit consensus from the talk page, so it's easy to find what the proper source should be; I don't think we'll find much disagreement on that. That is my argument for keeping cites out of the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

See WP:SOURCEACCESS. –– FormalDude talk 08:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, but in this instance we already have several reliable and readily available sources. We don't need a source about the "Trump Administration’s efforts—through law and words—to turn back the clock for women" that is not readily available and is probably better suited for the Presidency of Donald Trump article in any case. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 09:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Those 3 sentences belong in the Trump administration article, IMHO. GoodDay ( talk) 13:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I suggest we move the lead sentence "Trump's election and policies sparked numerous protests" to the end of the lead paragraph from the middle of it. As written, it reads to me like the protests are in reaction to the Russian interference issue. I think it makes more sense to first enumerate the issues protests were in reaction to (racism, conspiracy theories, etc), then after that to mention the protests.

I am posting the edit here because the sentence is marked "DO NOT CHANGE this sentence without prior consensus" and Zaathras complained on that basis with the move. As I wasn't editing the sentence, just moving it, I figured I was following the letter of the law, but I have no objection to following process here. As an aside, it might make sense to follow what was done for the Climate Change article and mark the entire lead section with "Please do not change the content in the lead section without prior discussion" instead of just selectively fencing off a few sentences.

Anyhow, I'm thinking I just wait a day to see if there's any objections to the edit, and if not I'll make the edit tomorrow. Let me know if there's a different system or objections to the edit (or in support of it). Thanks! -- Efbrazil ( talk) 16:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd prefer a move a couple sentences earlier so it comes right after the sentence about winning the election (ending in "... government service"). I'm neutral on the proposed change vs. the status quo. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 16:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose moving the sentence to the end of the paragraph. It used to follow the sentence about winning the election (ending in "... government service") for years, then some idiot moved the Mueller investigation from the fifth paragraph up to the third and added it in the wrong place. The idiot in question being me, I just moved the sentence back to where it belongs. "Policies" refers to the political positions mentioned in the first sentence of the paragraph. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks- your changes work for me, although I don't know about process here since you touched one of the blessed sentences. Efbrazil ( talk) 21:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I should have added another note to consensus item 20, explaining that I changed the personal pronoun to the name last year because the noun in the added sentence wasn't Trump. The sentence is now back where it belongs, and the consensus wording has been restored. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I have been attempting to add information to the article regarding Trump tariffs that is getting reverted. The article currently has clear bias where we say things like "failure" based on opinion pieces and instead of data. Here are the facts:

1. The trade deficit with China went down after the tariffs were imposed. This is clear according to United States Census Data, shown here on an annualized basis: https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html

I added a chart with that information here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Trade_Deficit.svg

I also removed the characterization that "the deficit reached its highest level in 12 years under his administration", which is a statement that could be made about any of our recent presidents if you just look at the chart. The facts are that the results of the trade war are mixed. The edit was reverted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=1088669286&oldid=1088655265

Don't you think the chart is a better characterization of the trade war than a sentence using a single data point to characterize the effects of the trade war as "nothing"?

2. I tried to remove the highly biased statement that the tariffs were "a failure" based on sourcing to liberal and business interest opinion articles. The edit was reverted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=1088669796&oldid=1088669286

Shouldn't we avoid saying things like "failure" based on opinion pieces and stick to facts instead?

3. If we are to going say things like "failure", then I figure we should probably add that Biden has kept the Trump tariffs in place. I guess he likes failures! I added that information from this source: https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/26/politics/china-tariffs-biden-policy/index.html

The edit was reverted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=1088697893&oldid=1088697341

I guess because the editors here don't want Biden portrayed as a failure. That's Trump's role, right?

Look, all I am trying to do is replace clear bias in this article regarding trade with the facts of the matter. It looks to me like the editors here want to suppress any facts that don't portray Trump in a purely negative light. Is there any piece of information above regarding trade that anybody thinks we should put in the article, or has Trump derangement syndrome overtaken the editors of this article? Efbrazil ( talk) 17:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

"The article currently has clear bias". That should be the end of any discussion. We do not remove bias from RS here. We document it, including non-neutral language. Also, edit warring and original research are not allowed, NO MATTER if you are 100% correct. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 17:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Bias is in which articles are selectively used. What I was trying to do was remove opinion pieces and state facts, which I think is kind of the point of Wikipedia (consensus and facts, not one person's opinion). I did no original research, and all my edits were seeking consensus, not edit warring. Efbrazil ( talk) 18:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

deficit reached its highest level in 12 years is noteworthy because Trump had pledged to "sharply lower" it, per the source. Chart: It's not a characterization of the trade war at all because there may have well have been other factors that influenced the trade deficit, the pandemic, a war, the Ever Given, stuff reliable sources would factor into their reporting. (Also a spelling error, unless you want to include some other crisis or crises that occurred in 2008.) Bias: yeah, Trump Derangement Syndrome sounds totally unbiased. If you have RS saying Trump's trade war was a success or that it was not the failure other sources say it was, please present them. Biden: The appropriate page would be the one on Biden. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for seeing "crises", corrected spelling to crisis.

Regarding the rest, by the numbers the trade deficit with China dropped dramatically in 2019, before the pandemic kicked in (and after tariffs). This is not like the size of crowds at his inauguration or his reelection loss. The result of the trade war is highly disputed and there is no "fact" that says it was a "failure", just opinion. I'm sure there are plenty of sources on fox news or brietbart or wherever talking about how it's a huge success, but it's clearly not a "success" any more than it's a "failure". It's a complicated policy issue that we are grossly oversimplifying. Here are a few sources with some good reporting describing the mixed results:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/05/politics/trade-deficit-falls-2019-trump/index.html

https://www.marketplace.org/2022/02/25/what-has-the-u-s-china-trade-war-achieved/

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/26/politics/china-tariffs-biden-policy/index.html Efbrazil ( talk) 22:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• We need reliable secondary sourcing to draw conclusions from graphs and to indicate which conclusions are significant. The conclusions you removed were cited to eg. the AP. And it's simply untrue that the citations you removed to the Brookings institute, Bloomberg, or CNN are considered liberal and business interest opinion articles; the Brookings Institution is perhaps the most well-regarded think-tank in the world and is generally considered roughly neutral, while Bloomberg and CNN are both high-quality neutral sources suitable for statements of fact. -- Aquillion ( talk) 18:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Why the heck are we sourcing economics-related data to CNN? They are a news channel, not an expert source on American economic history. Dimadick ( talk) 19:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

    The actual text here is that it was "largely characterized as a failure"; a news channel summarizing how something has been received and covered is a reasonable source for that characterization. Of course, we can use better sources if people can find them, but a mainstream news channel is a reasonable source for a brief sentence characterizing how a politician's policies have been characterized. If we could find better academic sources we could perhaps removed the characterized as, I guess. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

    I included a few links above to better sources that are presenting nuance, including by CNN and Marketplace. Mostly, I don't see a point in saying "failure" at all, it's a subjective and oversimplified analysis that doesn't belong on wikipedia. We should be featuring facts, not presenting opinion and speculation as fact. Efbrazil ( talk) 23:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Efbrazil, you write: "remove opinion pieces and state facts". Of course we state facts, but we also document opinions, and we don't simply "remove opinion pieces", as they are an important part of the "sum total of human knowledge" which Jimbo told us to document. That's the reason Wikipedia exists! Dry facts make for a very boring encyclopedia and would make Wikipedia just like any other encyclopedia. No, we are very different and much more informative. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 18:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  Obviously anything Trump does will have plenty of pro and con opinion about it. Should we say everything he does is a success and a failure, then include sourcing to CNN and Fox News for each "side"? Is what I'm trying to get at here is that we are grossly oversimplifying a complicated issue by treating it like the size of his election crowd or the lie that the 2020 election was stolen. The tariffs are not an objective failure, they are a subjective success or failure, depending on your point of view. Efbrazil ( talk) 22:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Just commenting to say that I reverted because this BLP should contain as little as possible info about Biden. That is better suited for Presidency of Donald Trump. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, my first preference was just to get rid of the subjective "failure" characterization. When people objected to that, I figured we could back off to at least tempering the "failure" statement by saying they were kept in place by Biden, which clearly indicates that they weren't considered a failure by everybody. If you can think of a way to fix the bias without bringing Biden into it I'm all for that. Efbrazil ( talk) 23:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  Or, we just reject your assertion that it is "biased" at all. I'm all for that choice. ValarianB ( talk) 11:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  So you think saying it was a "failure" is not oversimplifying and bias? Please review the articles I linked to above. Efbrazil ( talk) 16:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• This is just garden-variety WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, as evidenced by the "but what about Biden!?", references to "trump derangement syndrome", and so on. Not sure their future in this topic area is going to be a net positive. ValarianB ( talk) 19:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  Righting great wrongs requires that the information being presented is somehow original research. I'm just trying to correct an issue where cherry picked sources were used to present a one sided view of things. When presenting information about this guy it's easy to fall victim to biased reporting, and that's what happened in this case. Efbrazil ( talk) 16:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Markell_West, what's with the hyphenation here, here, and here? Financial disclosure forms, property tax abatement, and consumer goods companies are non-hyphenated compound nouns, not nouns modified by a compound adjective. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

It says in the intro, "Trump graduated from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania with a bachelor's degree in 1968." Shouldn't the subject (economics) be stated? Arctic Gazelle ( talk) 06:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

No, because it doesn’t relate to his notability. If you erase his media, business, and political career, and all he has is his Econ degree, he wouldn’t be notable enough to be on WP.

Also the reasons for his notability (careers in business, media, and politics), none of those three required a degree in economics. If he was a notable economist or economics professor, then yes it should be included in the lead. But it doesn’t pertain to his notability. Mrbeastmodeallday ( talk) 09:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@Arctic Gazelle i disagree. it absolutely should say he graduated with a degree in economics; the subject of his study is at least as relevant as the name of the school or the university he attended. Texaseliz ( talk) 20:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I think you are actually *agreeing* with me. Arctic Gazelle ( talk) 07:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Don't include the degree. It's not relevant in an already bloated lead. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 00:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

No. It's a bit confusing because he really studied business administration. And I would leave the degree in because although no one's degrees establish notability, they are noteworthy aspects of their biographies, especially when they graduate from prestigious schools. TFD ( talk) 04:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

If he really studied business administration, as you claim, then the body of the article needs to be changed because it says, "At age 13, he was enrolled at the New York Military Academy, a private boarding school, and in 1964, he enrolled at Fordham University. Two years later, he transferred to the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, graduating in May 1968 with a B.S. in economics. In 2015, Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen threatened Trump's colleges, high school, and the College Board with legal action if they released Trump's academic records." Do you have any hard evidence? Arctic Gazelle ( talk) 07:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

No, he did not study business administration. Where did you find that bit of misinformation? On May 20, 1968, Donald John Trump received a "Bachelor of Science in Economics", per the source in Donald Trump#Early life, page 21 of the PDF archived on the Wayback Machine. We need to leave the degree in because Wharton is mainly known for its graduate school, i.e., the MBA program. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Generations of Wharton alums are spinning in their graves at the possiblilty that Trump is among their MBAs. SPECIFICO talk 18:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that something has to relate to someone's notability to be included in the intro. Even if it did, I would argue that for a business man and president of a nation, who is involved in setting the economic policy of the nation, if it's notable that he has a degree, it's notable that the degree is in econcomics. It also shows that he had an interest in economics early on in life. Arctic Gazelle ( talk) 07:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It's an undergraduate degree. All Wharton students graduate with a Bachelor of Science in economics, but students choose areas of study called concentrations. Trump graduated from Wharton with a concentration in real estate. It shows that he had an interest in his father's real estate business. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• It's two extra words: "in economics". It would be odd in any biography to read that someone got a bachelor's degree at X university and then have what the actual degree was left out. That sentence is 17 words long, and it's missing the most important 2 ("in economics"). I don't see any particularly good reason to conceal what the actual degree even was. Endwise ( talk) 18:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The degree is the Bachelor of Science. This is no different than the biographies of most other presidents. Of course, many of them also graduated from post-graduate schools, Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, etc. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Could you cite other examples of undergraduate majors of businessmen or politicians? What was Harry Truman's undergraduate major? What was Leona Helmsley's undergraduate major? SPECIFICO talk 20:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)