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.

Let's find a compromise. The sources, in my opinion, are clear. Trump did promote misinformation about hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. See:

So I don't see very much room for not describing Trump's promotion of HCQ and ivermectin as "promoting misinformation about unproven treatments." To avoid that because we personally think it isn't "misinformation" would be pro- WP:FRINGE original research.

The more pressing question is: How should we describe the misinformation re: testing? Here is how our sources describe it:

So how do we summarize that in the lead? I would push for something other than "misinformation about...and the need for testing". Perhaps:

• misinformation about unproven treatments and COVID-19 case counts
• misinformation about unproven treatments and the validity of diagnostic testing (as a valid summary of "the validity of diagnostic testing in determining case counts")
• misinformation about unproven treatments and COVID-19 statistics
• misinformation about unproven treatments and diagnostic testing

• some other formulation? But I personally find the original "and the need for testing" to be a poor summary of our best available sources. Thanks for any input.

—  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 17:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Please do not personalize your talk page comments.

Please make neutrally worded statements of issues that concern you. For example, what my edit did not revert to is of no significance to the content you appear to prefer. I simply reinstated the valid well-sourced content you removed, because I believe it's the clearest most succinct and best reflection of mainstream RS narratives. Trump's concern was not about the need for testing. It was about him denying the conclusions that public health officials and others drew from the results. I tried to make that clear in my edit summary. SPECIFICO talk 19:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, you've ignored the point I spelled out in my edit summary and was a significant constituent of that wording -- he did not promote "misinformation" about those drugs. He caused his followers to take the drugs. He promoted the drugs -- to the point that there was an urgent shortage of Ivermectin for valid medical use. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

So, it seems like there are two issues. To be totally honest, I’m not sure there’s a huge difference between the proposed versions, especially as to the first issue, but I do have thoughts as to each.

As to issue one: promoted misinformation on unproven drugs vs. promoted unproven drugs. I think it is true that he promoted misinformation about the drugs—specifically, by falsely overstating their efficacy. Surely false claims of effectiveness are a type of misinformation, no?

Second, regarding testing. I do think the broad misinformation ... about testing is okay. I don't think "misinformation about the need for testing" is accurate—(falsely) saying that the United States has high case counts because of the testing rates isn't quite the same as saying the testing rates are too high. But misinformation about [...] COVID case counts is probably the most accurate of the potential statements.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 20:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Quick question. Are you suggesting that he didn't promote misinformation concerning the drugs? Isn't him promoting the drugs the same thing as promoting misinformation, especially when the information he promoted contradicted the guidance of reputable government entities? Cessaune [talk] 23:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Per all of the above, the word "misinformation" (or some similar sentiment) is vital because we need to make clear that the things he was saying were not true. To remove that eliminates the key information about it. -- Jayron 32 12:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• The text originally said, "promoted misinformation about unproven treatments and the need for testing". Shibbolethink removed "and the need for testing", saying the sentence was confusing, if I understood the edit summary correctly. I then changed the wording to "promoted unproven treatments and misinformation about testing", believing that to be less confusing. Next edit by Shibbolethink: "promoted misinformation about unproven treatments and the validity of diagnostic testing". I have no idea whether Trump ever doubted that the Covid-19 tests correctly detected Covid-19; the sources cited in Donald_Trump#Testing mention that Trump said tests weren't needed because whatever, that enough tests were available for everyone who wanted one (that wasn't the case for quite a while), that tests unnecessarily inflated the numbers of the infected, etc. Specifico then changed the wording back to my edit, possibly believing that was the original wording. I prefer the original one. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC). On second thought: there's no need for "the need for". My preferred version: "promoted misinformation about unproven treatments and testing". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC) Fixed typo. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  The only reason why I don't like that version (promoted misinformation about unproven treatments and testing) is that one possible interpretation of the sentence is that the "testing" is also "unproven". —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 13:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think that misreading is highly unlikely. SPECIFICO talk 14:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  Would reversing it make everyone happy? promoted misinformation about testing and unproven treatments?-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think it's perhaps the worst option from a stylistic perspective, but it is accurate and verifiable. I would heavily prefer "misinformation about unproven treatments and COVID-19 case counts". or "...COVID-19 statistics." Because these are the most closely aligned to what the most prominent misinformation was about, and because (styistically) each noun has its own adjective in that framing. I would even prefer "promoted misinformation about statistics and unproven treatments". or "promoted misinformation about case counts and unproven treatments" If that makes sense? —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 14:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, I agree with you that COVID-19 case counts would be the most accurate phrasing (although since we open the sentence with COVID, maybe just case counts? I am glad that "need for" seems to have been discarded, and "testing" alone is, I think, my second choice, but "case counts" seems more specific: As I understand them, our sources say that Trump falsely suggested that the U.S. case counts were higher than other countries because of our high testing rates. For me, that's most directly misinformation about case counts ... it's only indirectly misinformation about testing (i.e. a consequence of the testing). I do take Space's point that Trump cast doubt on the need for more tests ... though I'd also say that's indirectly a comment on testing itself.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  yes, I think we should go with "promoted misinformation about case counts and unproven treatments" —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 14:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  Easily fixed: promoted misinformation about testing and unproven treatments. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  Hey why didn't anyone else suggest that! ;) -- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  That's OK. Keeping the simple "testing" is important for this short lead mention. SPECIFICO talk 14:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• It seems we are at an impasse between these two options:
  He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials in his messaging, and...

• promoted misinformation about testing and unproven treatments
• promoted misinformation about case counts and unproven treatments

I've made a notice over at WP:FTN to get some outside input. @ Cessaune@ Jayron32 do you have any opinions as to the merits of these two options? —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 15:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I literally couldn't care less. They're both accurate to their own extents, I guess. Cessaune [talk] 18:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

So, the issue with the testing and case counts stuff is that it's more nuanced than can probably be captured in a compound sentence along side the unproven treatments, but probably does bear mentioning. The following are undisputed facts, but don't always equate to "misinformation" in the same way that the sentence makes it look like (quotes from article directly):

1. Trump directly promoted and advised unproven (and in some cases harmful) treatments such as "Beginning in mid-March, Trump held a daily task force press conference, joined by medical experts and other administration officials,[462] sometimes disagreeing with them by promoting unproven treatments." and "The daily coronavirus task force briefings ended in late April, after a briefing at which Trump suggested the dangerous idea of injecting a disinfectant to treat COVID-19"
2. Trump didn't spread misinformation about testing per se, what he did was try to stop testing from happening because the results were politically inconvenient for him. "In June and July, Trump said several times that the U.S. would have fewer cases of coronavirus if it did less testing, that having a large number of reported cases "makes us look bad".[480][481]" I'm not sure this is accurately categorized as "spreading misinformation" in the same way that telling people to take Ivermectin or inject themselves with household cleaners to cure the disease was, what it was was him using his political position to interfere with public health organizations from doing their jobs during a crisis. Spreading misinformation about testing or case counts sounds like he promoted data that he had reason to know was false, which the article body doesn't currently say that he did. It says a lot of things about his mismanagement of the pandemic, but nothing that qualifies as spreading misinformation about case counts or testing data. I think we need to mention this in the lead, but lumping it into a compound sentence is awkward and introduces a level of inaccuracy I'm not comfortable with.

Anyhoo, yes this stuff needs to be mentioned, but nothing yet proposed really does it well. Maybe it would be better to say something like "promoted misinformation about unproven treatments and tried to use political pressure to interfere with testing efforts" or something like that. Don't necessarily love that myself, but it's better, and reflects what is actually written in the body currently.-- Jayron 32 16:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair points! I do think that attributing a relatively high case count to a high testing rate qualifies as misinformation on case counts (or at least is more direct than saying misinformation on testing), but I also see what you're saying that it's not really comparable to the treatment claims.

I don't want to propose anything too radically different, but, stepping back, what about: promoted misinformation about unproven treatment and downplayed the United States's high case count.? -- Jerome Frank Disciple 16:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

"And downplayed the United States' high case count" would also be acceptable to me as a very close second. It doesn't have any of the confusion/ambiguity of the bare "testing" which is my central concern. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 16:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

That actually looks really good to me. I would maybe reorder the sentence to (and trim other parts to make concise) to a final version of:

He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, used political pressure to interfere with testing efforts, and spread misinformation about unproven treatments."

How's that? —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 16:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

^ I'm also good with that.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 16:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

-- Jayron 32 16:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Here from WP:FTN, but that looks about as accurate as I can think of and shouldn't realistically be a point of dispute for anyone. The additional comment above on downplaying case counts is valid for inclusion too, but I agree it could be easily a mouthful to get too much into that in one sentence. Maybe it's worthwhile to just say something to the effect of testing and reporting efforts. That would at least give a handwave to the concept of downplaying case counts/reporting specifically.

Another option that would work is to add He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, used political pressure to interfere with testing efforts, downplayed case count reports, and spread misinformation about unproven treatments. That's about as long as I'd like to see a sentence on that, but we're also talking about a lot of hefty WP:FRINGE proponent stuff coming from this BLP that it's important to try to work in case counts. That's especially since downplaying case counts are a common fringe talking point in addition to other political pressure. As an outside commenter, I'd be content with the original version I responded to though too. KoA ( talk) 18:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Shibb's version is the best. Downplaying case counts isn't as noteworthy as the rest, and five clauses are too many. DFlhb ( talk) 19:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

This little bit of lead text was extensively discussed before being placed in the lead. It was fine, and it was discussed by many well-informed editors at the time -- more than once, as the talk archives show. It was perfectly fine. Like everything else on this site, it was not perfect. So it was tweaked a few times to a slight improvement, then we considered the remote possibility that the improved version might in some rare instance be misconstrued to say something ridiculous. So SpaceX addressed that concern with another little tweak.
Now, many posts later, after SpaceX's fix seemed to have been accepted as a compromise solution, we find this thread engaged in lengthening this little bit, making it IMO less clear and unambiguous. I think we should use the text SpaceX devised and be done. -- Apologies to Jayron, KoA and others who've been drawn in. I'm stumped as to what this has to do with FRINGE. Lies ≠ Fringe. It's been a longstanding goal on this page to shorten it, not lengthen it. SPECIFICO talk 19:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Misinformation re: testing, case counts, and unproven treatments is indisputably WP:FRINGE-relevant. "Many well-informed editors" are currently participating in this thread. Multiple of whom have agreed that "need for testing" (the original status quo) is not an ideal wording. Over time, new angles and issues are often considered, which may lead to a new version of text placed in an article. This is part of the process, and I see no policy- or guideline-based reason for why this is a bad thing. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 20:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe that your reply has addressed the points I made directly above. SPECIFICO talk 20:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I second this. The statement Space4T addded is simple and clear. Too much time is being devoted to such a non-issue. The thing is, pretty much all of the wordings people have brought up for discussion are fine. Cessaune [talk] 03:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm stumped as to what this has to do with FRINGE. Lies ≠ Fringe. Lies aren't always WP:FRINGE, but fringe is usually dealing with various types of lies, especially in science/medical topics. Part of the reason I did decide to comment here as someone uninvolved is that Shibbolethink's proposal brought the text more in line with how we typically describe fringe proponents that do pretty major crackpot things. When a BLP does a lot of fringey things, especially more severe, the list in the lead typically gets more expansive, and their proposal was giving more appropriate WP:WEIGHT that FRINGE deals with a lot while also keeping things concise for the amount of ground it has to cover. KoA ( talk) 13:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

KoA, which one is the original version you responded to, as you said here? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@ KoA: The RS narratives mostly describe him promoting the treatments not misinformation. See, e.g. this NIH publication. Promoting unproven treatments is a much stronger statement than promoting misinformation about them. And we do need to follow the central narratives of the mainstream RS. All these narratives about promoting the treatments make clear they are unproven, false, dangerous, etc. But they do not couch it in terms of information. In fact, Trump is not particularly prone to discussing information. He thinking is more declamatory. SPECIFICO talk 19:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

These sources (except where indicated) are scholarly, peer-reviewed secondary articles, from reputable topic-relevant journals.

The sources you've cited are from The Lancet and the JMIR are also scholarly, but they are not all secondary publications. For example, the JMIR piece (which you refer to as an "NIH publication") is an observational study and therefore WP:PRIMARY. It is not published by the NIH. It is authored by two scientists from McGill and York University in Canada, reviewed by academics from Florida State University and Salahaddin University-Erbil in Kurdistan, edited by an academic from the University of Victoria in Canada, and published by a journal based in Toronto, Canada. The Lancet piece is worth considering, but it, like the JMIR, does not actually contradict the claim that Trump's promotion of HCQ etc is "misinformation". It simply does not use the term "misinformation" to refer to anything related. Certainly worth considering, but does not outweigh the large amount of relevant published scholarship which does use that term, shown above.—  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 20:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

When you search for references, as you have done above, the search query will determine the result. If one is testing the hypothesis that "misinformation" is the dominant issue in RS coverage, such a search must not include "information", "misinformation" or similar. That will screen the sources to prioritize the ones that appear to validate the conclusion that these terms are dominant in the population, when they may not be. Search engines, used with care, are useful tools for finding references, but it is very difficult and dubious that they can be used to support fine distinctions in the mainstream narrative such as are needed to evaluate NPOV WEIGHT.

Once again, the Lancet article is a tertiary overview that does help in evaluating WEIGHT. It starts from a blank slate and lays out what its authors have determined are the most significant points. Their judgment, or the judgment of similar broad studies such as the Columbia study, is what we need to use. Not WP editors' non-expert evaluations of whatever sources we locate. This is a frequent issue in WP articles about recent events, and it accounts for a lot of the discussion about what's DUE and NPOV on politics pages in particular. SPECIFICO talk 12:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

When you search for references, as you have done above, the search query will determine the result. If one is testing the hypothesis that "misinformation" is the dominant issue in RS coverage, such a search must not include "information", "misinformation" or similar.
I actually searched for "Trump hydroxychloroquine" here. On The Wikipedia Library and Gale Academic OneFile. Please don't assume how I collect my source reviews in the future and consider asking instead. Thanks! —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 13:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Summary

Stable version:
promoted misinformation about unproven treatments and the need for testing.
Proposed versions:
1. promoted misinformation about unproven treatments. (Shibbolethink) UTC 18.53, 17 May
2. promoted unproven treatments and misinformation about testing. (Space4T) UTC 11.27 18 May
3. promoted misinformation about unproven treatments and the validity of diagnostic testing. (Shibbolethink) UTC 15.04 18 May
4. promoted unproven treatments and misinformation about testing. (Specifico) UTC 16.21 18 May
5. promoted misinformation about unproven treatments and testing. (Space4T)
6. promoted misinformation about testing and unproven treatments. (Jerome Francis Disciple, Space4T)
7. misinformation about unproven treatments and COVID-19 case counts. (Shibbolethink)
8. promoted misinformation about statistics and unproven treatments. (Shibbolethink)
9. promoted misinformation about case counts and unproven treatments. (Shibbolethink)

Shibbolethink then cited an impasse between versions 6 and 9, notified two editors who had been involved in the thread (Jayron32 and Cessaune) and WP:FTN (we were neither advocating for, promoting, nor discussing fringe theories). Pinging DFlhb, the—I presume—independent uninvolved editor mentioned in the edit summary in the main space (see link below) who may not have followed the entire "process" from the start.

10. promoted misinformation about unproven treatments and tried to use political pressure to interfere with testing efforts. (Jayron32)
11. used political pressure to interfere with testing efforts, and spread misinformation about unproven treatments. {Shibbolethink)
12. testing and reporting efforts. (KoA (editor summoned from FTN))

Shibbolethink then closed the discussion and two minutes later edited the main page, saying that of a clear consensus of many multiple independent uninvolved editors on the talk page, this is the most well-liked version. I counted a total of 8, and multiple editors supported multiple versions of the many proposed versions. If there are any new angles and issues to be considered, they should have been brought up in the discussion, and nobody argued that that would have been a bad thing, but thanks for the lecture. Duly noted that you tried to implement [] a comprise and want to find a comprise while other editors change and revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC) Added UTC times and dates for numbered items that indicate main space edits. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Shibbolethink then closed the discussion
I didn't close any discussions.

Pinging DFlhb, the—I presume—independent uninvolved editor mentioned in the edit summary in the main space

No, I actually meant @ Jayron32 and @ KoA. DFHib has commented on this talk page in all these various disputes recently, so I wasn't thinking of them as "uninvolved" though they were uninvolved in this particular section, and I do appreciate their input and think their comments in this section are insightful and contribute to any building consensus we have going here.

I implemented the version with the most uninvolved editors in support, which arose out of discussion, originally proposed by @ Jayron32. This is perfectly in line with WP:BRD, which specifically permits "attempt[ing] a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns. You can try this even if the discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion, but be sure to avoid engaging in any kind of edit warring." And yes, I and several other users proposed many different possible versions before other users came along and suggested versions which solved a lot of those problems quite handily. I am in favor of any of versions 10, 11, or 12, which I think are the best proposed so far. Roughly, I would support 12>11>10>>>>>9>>8>>>>all the others.

Why is all of this being brought up as some sort of malicious act? (at least that is what I get out of this comment, let me know if I'm misunderstanding the intent. "thanks for the lecture" and advocating against involving WP:FTN are what threw me that direction). Continued massaging of versions and editing back and forth is a normal part of discussion in situations like this. I have broken no policies or guidelines. I am honestly more confused by this comment than anything. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 15:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, in my case I don't think I've ever set foot in a Donald Trump topic outside of Neopalpa donaldtrumpi, so I'm probably about as uninvolved as one can get if one is focusing on outside perspectives. KoA ( talk) 13:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I got a little lost: So the current version of the article is:

He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, used political pressure to interfere with testing efforts, and spread misinformation about unproven treatments.

Shibbolethink proposed that text in response to a similar proposal by Jayron32.

In response to that proposal, Jayron32, KoA, DFlhb, and I said we'd find that version acceptable and preferable to the status quo for a few reasons, although a repeated theme was that it was more accurate. (See, e.g., Jayron32: "Trump didn't spread misinformation about testing per se, what he did was try to stop testing from happening because the results were politically inconvenient for him"; KoA: "that looks about as accurate as I can think of and shouldn't realistically be a point of dispute for anyone"). KoA also proposed a variation but reiterated he would be okay with Shibbolethink's version. SPECIFICO opposed the proposed version, saying it was "less clear and unambiguous" (emphasis added) and also objected to the increases length. SPECIFICO also proposed an the sentence should be refocused on that "Trump thought the shutdown would be bad for him politically and deployed numerous strategies to deny the seriousness of the pandemic, resulting in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary American Deaths".

Genuinely asking—am I missing something? Space, are you saying you also object to the proposed version? Or are you saying you think it should be given more time? (Or is it none of the above and something else?)-- Jerome Frank Disciple 15:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• I realize now that my mistake was believing that the removal of text was about grammar (a "confusing negative-positive"). IMO the stable version was pretty clear about Trump having spread misinformation about medicines and the need for testing but stupid me had to try and fix/improve it, giving the OP the opportunity for these statements]: Let's find a compromise. The sources, in my opinion, are clear. Trump did promote misinformation about hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. See: [hatted list of sources] So I don't see very much room for not describing Trump's promotion of HCQ and ivermectin as "promoting misinformation about unproven treatments." To avoid that because we personally think it isn't "misinformation" would be pro- WP:FRINGE original research. [[File:|25px|link=]] And here I thought that this page was edited by rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Trumpers. So, it’s rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth, pro-fringe anti-Trumpers, then? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC) "Closed the discussion": wrote that of a clear consensus of many multiple independent uninvolved editors on the talk page, this is the most well-liked version, and two minutes later edited the main page with their preferred version while editors were still responding. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

True that I hadn't been commenting from the start, but I still read every post before commenting (always do). DFlhb ( talk) 21:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Alternative approach

Per my statement above, I think this thread is deep down the rabbit hole. But if we are to continue working on this lead content, let's think about the most important points. They are that Trump thought the shutdown would be bad for him politically and deployed numerous strategies to deny the seriousness of the pandemic, resulting in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary American Deaths. That's a nice summary more important than whether the cure du jour was Bleach, Ivermectin, Hydroxi-whatnot, or UV enemas -- or whether he tried to convince his base than nobody was really getting sick. SPECIFICO talk 20:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I can't find the Columbia study at the moment, but here's one of the many tertiary sources on Trump's evisceration of preparedness and his response to the pandemic: Lancet article on Trump's health care record. We can state the conclusions of RS narratives without lising bad stuff and hoping readers get the message. There are many other such studies now, with the benefit of some perspective. SPECIFICO talk 18:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

A high-level sourced takeaway is what we should aim for (and all previously-proposed versions fail on that metric), but the sourcing would have to be exceptionally strong for this wording not to fail NPOV. A slightly better, even higher-level summary would be that He contributed to politicizing the COVID-19 pandemic, downplayed the risk of the virus, [3] and interfered with government agencies' response. [4] DFlhb ( talk) 21:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I would support something like this. Cessaune [talk] 22:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm also completely fine with this in isolation—I think it reads well!—but I'd like more discussion of it compared to the current version. Small clarification point: would it be "responses" or "response" (last word)?-- Jerome Frank Disciple 12:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Sure, here's a point-by-point comparison. Current version:

1. reacted slowly, many countries did; it's highly non-specific, far from the most salient point about Trump's response
2. ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials: implies a less active role than interfered (my version). Also implies he only verbally contradicted them, rather than interfering with their actions.
3. used political pressure to interfere with testing efforts true but too specific. My version shows he interfered with more than just testing.
4. spread misinformation about unproven treatments is about Trump causing people to choose ineffective treatments after they catch it. My version is more comprehensive: downplayed the risk of the virus increased their risk of catching it in the first place. More damaging, since the amount of people that took these treatments is quite a small subset of all the people who took excessive risks and failed to comply with anti-COVID measures.

My version:

1. politicizing the COVID-19 pandemic was the single most salient point about Trump's response, since it contributed to every other problem: widespread lack of adherence to measures like masks among Republicans, or causing Republicans and even some Democrats to be skeptical of "his" vaccines (see the first Fauci quote in the first paper I linked).
2. downplayed the risk of the virus, also highly salient. This reduced compliance, which is the biggest factor in the effectiveness of a pandemic response. Also see rationale in point 4 above.
3. interfered with government agencies' response: a more concise and informative way to state points 2 and 3 of the current version. Also its implicit subtext (interfered... for electoral/political reasons) is more obvious than in the current version.

DFlhb ( talk) 14:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I would not support this version if it does not include any mention of Trump's spreading of misinfo re: unproven drugs like HCQ, Ivermectin, etc. This is the most notable part of Trump's misinformation legacy, and should be mentioned in the lead. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 13:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@ DFlhb, to address @ Shibbolethink's concern, would be acceptable to also address the unproven treatments in your sentence. I know you already have a line talking about downplaying the risks—effectively increasing the risk of people catching the disease, but it seems to me that we could non redundantly also address the treatment aspect to (increasing risks of those who caught the disease). I.e. He contributed to politicizing the COVID-19 pandemic, downplayed the risk of the virus, promoted unproven treatments, and interfered with government agencies' responses.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes this would be acceptable to me. Not my favorite version, but is acceptable as a good compromise. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 14:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Not a good compromise. It's not as salient a point as the others, and it turns the sentence from a breezy 3-clause to an unavoidably clumsier 4-clause. Also disagree that it's the most notable part of Trump's misinformation legacy (Shibbolethink): it doesn't come close to the Big Lie (it's in the name! Many lies, but only one "Big Lie"). Let's take a look at RS about his lies, and see what prominence they give to each: WaPo: they mention Trump's claim that the pandemic would disappear “like a miracle” (covered by "politicized, downplayed") in the 3rd paragraph, and mention the cures in the same sentence as two other lies in the 12th paragraph. NBC mentions his downplaying the risks in the 4th paragraph, the 10th through 13th, interference in the 14th, then back to downplaying in the 15th to 18th paragraphs. Unproven treatments are down in the 19th. CNN mentions COVID risk-downplaying as the "most dangerous lie" of Trump's entire presidency; doesn't mention unproven treatments.

Jayron32 was right in this comment: when we make the specific as prominent as the general, we only weaken the general, and it's bad writing. Only high-level takeaways belong in the lead. The only specific lie worth mentioning in the lead is the Big Lie (3rd paragraph). The only other lie we mention in the lead is this phrase about treatments; that's undue emphasis. Instead of subjectively (without sources) deciding which lies are notable enough to highlight, we should improve the lead's high-level takeaway about his lies (paragraph 3), which is currently not great (we only say he lies more, but fail to point out that his lies are qualitatively different). DFlhb ( talk) 15:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree the four-item list is slightly clumsier (disregarding the old rule of threes!), but I also think that "downplayed the risk of the virus" vs. "promoted unproven treatments" isn't a specific/general question—because, as I understand it, downplaying risks doesn't directly relate to promoting unproven treatments. I do think that most reliable sources gave substantial coverage to his promotion of unproven treatments, and that the promotion is relevant irrespective of whether it can be characterized as a "lie" or features prominently in a list of "most outrageous falsehoods".-- Jerome Frank Disciple 15:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

"General" is his tendency to lie. "Specific" are individual lies. My argument's not about what relates to what, but avoiding the design-by-committee tendency to include "pet details".

Dueness arguments are best supported by sources that summarize other sources, which I've presented. Unsupported assertions of significance are unhelpful. DFlhb ( talk) 16:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Dueness arguments are best supported by sources that summarize other sources, which I've presented
And secondary source reviews. Per WP:DUE, the important thing is prominence in "reliable sources", not "tertiary reliable sources". —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 16:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Secondariness depends on context. The sources I describe are secondary.

Your source survey below has limited usefulness. A search for "Trump misinformation covid" can support dueness in an article about misinformation spread by Trump during COVID. I bring up sources that summarize his entire presidency, a more general topic, which provides stronger evidence of due weight in the presidency-related paragraphs of the lead. DFlhb ( talk) 17:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I feel like this discussion is, unfortunately, leading to some polarization over a fairly trivial difference. Just to recap, the current version of the article is:

He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, used political pressure to interfere with testing efforts, and spread misinformation about unproven treatments.

@ Shibbolethink proposed that passage, and @ DFlhb said it was the "best" among the alternatives presented.

There are, as I see it, two alterations under consideration. DFlhb suggested:

He contributed to politicizing the COVID-19 pandemic, downplayed the risk of the virus, and interfered with government agencies' response.

And, when Shib said they'd oppose a version that didn't address unproven treatments, I suggested this compromise:

He contributed to politicizing the COVID-19 pandemic, downplayed the risk of the virus, promoted unproven treatments, and interfered with government agencies' responses.

Shib said that that compromise was acceptable but the current version would be preferred. DFhlb said, at first, that compromise was acceptable (though not the best), but later changed their evaluation to "not a good compromise".

Why don't we pause and see what some other editors think. @ Cessaune is the only editor who, so far, has supported DFhlb's version, but that was before Shib's objection and the proposed compromise was made. We need to assess both whether any alteration is supported and whether Trump's promotion of unproven treatments should be mentioned if the text is altered.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 17:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@ DFlhb: (Shibbolethink): it doesn't come close to the Big Lie (it's in the name! Many lies, but only one "Big Lie"). Let's
Sorry I actually meant covid-19 misinformation legacy sorry that was not clear and I left that word out.

Instead of subjectively (without sources) deciding which lies are notable enough to highlightThis is not what I'm doing. I provided numerous sources above, but here is another source review for good measure:

Google search for "Trump misinformation covid", here are the unbiased results from the first page:

1. This NYT article about Trump being "the ‘Single Largest Driver’ of Coronavirus Misinformation". It says, right there in the article: But by far the most prevalent topic of misinformation was “miracle cures,” including Mr. Trump’s promotion of anti-malarial drugs and disinfectants as potential treatments for Covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. That accounted for more misinformation than the other 10 topics combined, the researchers reported.
2. Press release from Texas Democratic congressman Lloyd Doggett: 2 separate mentions of hydroxychloroquine, 1 additional mention of ultraviolet light. 2 additional vague "cures" or "treatments" messages about them being suppressed. Compared to 3 entries for the vaccine. 1 for the testing = more cases misinformation. Notably, this is not an RS.
3. Report from UConn's dedicated misinformation center: lists hydroxychloroquine misinformation as #1 on their list of categories, dedicating 5.5 pages to the topic. In a 13 page document.
4. This Atlantic article profiles the "biggest lies he’s told as the nation endures a public-health and economic calamity". HCQ (and other unproven treatments) is part of 3 entries out of 54. In comparison, no single idea or concept has that many "lies". "Vaccines" are the subject of 2. Masks, 2. Testing being the cause of increased cases, 2 entries. Unproven treatments are, from this article, clearly extremely important as the single most often mentioned controversy (by a plurality), and therefore clearly WP:DUE for the lead.
5. This JAMA article, which focuses on Trump's misinformation re: severity and does not address or consider treatments or vaccines, etc.
6. This Forbes contributor piece about This Cornell study I linked in an earlier comment which describes Hydroxychloroquine/other unproven treatments as the most important misinformation topic spread by Trump (same study covered in the #1 NYT article, I believe) Also not an RS, as a forbes contributor
7. This NPR report which focuses on which counties suffered the most from the pandemic, showing associations with Trump messaging. Doesn't get into specifics about that messaging. It focuses only on vaccination rate.
8. This Vox article which has this opening sentence: The president has questioned the efficacy of masks, hyped unproven treatments, and continues to promise a vaccine before experts and the drug companies themselves believe it will actually be ready.. it then prominently dedicates 5 paragraphs and the only graph in the article, to content about Hydroxychloroquine and other "miracle cures".
9. This WaPo article which is also about the Cornell study above which found the topic of "miracle cures" was the most important/prominent misinfo topic spread by Trump.
10. This Scientometrics study which is a PRIMARY source and thereby not vey useful to us. But also doesn't really delineate among topics from Trump's tweets, instead focusing on word usage overall.
11. This CNBC report focused on how Trump downplayed the disease's severity
12. This JMIR journal article focused entirely on Trump's promotion of unproven treatments. PRIMARY so not as useful
13. Our wikipedia article: COVID-19 misinformation by the United States. Which says in the lead downplaying the virus and promoting unapproved drugs as the two things Trump did.

That's all on my first page. Out of 13 items, 9 featured unproven treatments prominently. Many of these focused on unproven treatments as the single most damaging and prominent topic. It would clearly be WP:DUE for the lead and on par with any of the other clauses you've listed. To leave out the topic of "unproven treatments" or "miracle cures" would clearly violate WP:BALANCE, given how prominently featured the content is in our sources. (Edit 18:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC): bolded for emphasis) —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 16:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

That is a biased search query that cannot yield the claim of WEIGHT. A better search would be "Trump COVID" and see what it shows. SPECIFICO talk 17:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

That is a biased search query Completely disagree. We are discussing what topics to include in a sentence about Trump's failed response. If misinformation isn't included, then we aren't doing our jobs. But I did the search anyway, to get us closer to a compromise whenever possible.

Google search for "Trump COVID", here are the unbiased results from the first page:

1. Same as #2 on previous search: Press release from Texas Democratic congressman Lloyd Doggett: 2 separate mentions of hydroxychloroquine, 1 additional mention of ultraviolet light. 2 additional vague "cures" or "treatments" messages about them being suppressed. Compared to 3 entries for the vaccine. 1 for the testing = more cases misinformation. Notably, this is not an RS.
2. This NPR article which includes none of the clauses under discussion. Purely about Trump getting COVID himself.
3. This article published in Public Administration which includes this summary of Trump's communications: From that point on, throughout the summer, and until election day, Trump would frame the COVID‐19 crisis as a fading problem that was soon going away; blame China for failing to stop the “China virus;” tout false remedies such as hydroxychloroquine; undermine state mitigation measures and encourage protestors by tweeting “Liberate Minnesota,” “Liberate Michigan,” and “Liberate Virginia;” question the need for wearing masks; make strange statements such as suggesting COVID‐19 could be treated by injecting disinfectants; and tell the public and his officials that he wanted testing to be slowed down because more testing would find more cases (unproven treatments are represented by two entries in the list, compared to the testing issue and downplaying severity, which each occupy one entry.)
4. This Science article which says: Is the president receiving any other COVID-19 treatments? The statement released on 2 October by the president's physician said that in addition to the antibodies, Trump "has been taking zinc, vitamin D, famotidine, melatonin and a daily aspirin." That wording leaves unclear whether he was taking those substances before his diagnosed infection. Notably, the statement does not indicate whether Trump was or is taking hydroxychloroquine, the antimalarial he controversially pushed as a COVID-19 treatment.
5. This KFF source which lists (right after a discussion of downplaying the pandemic), this as the most prominent misinformation spread by the president: He has touted the use of the drug, hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19, despite the lack of evidence of its effectiveness, warnings of potential harms, and even after federal COVID-19 treatment guidelines recommended against its use. He suggested that applying ultraviolet light to or inside the body, or injecting disinfectant, could combat coronavirus.
6. This NYT article which again focuses on Trump's specific illness, not any of the topics under discussion here.
7. This American Oversight report, a non-RS.
8. This Nature news feature which says: His administration has undermined, suppressed and censored government scientists working to study the virus and reduce its harm. And his appointees have made political tools out of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), ordering the agencies to put out inaccurate information, issue ill-advised health guidance, and tout unproven and potentially harmful treatments for COVID-19.
9. This CNN report hyper-focused on the timeline of Trump's own COVID-19 illness.
10. NBC report which says: Documents obtained by the committee also show that Trump political appointees tried to pressure the Food and Drug Administration to authorize ineffective Covid treatments the president was pushing, like hydroxychloroquine and convalescent plasma, over the objections of career scientists, the report said.

This search appears to over-represent Trump's own illness course, and tells us very little about what sources find important in the overall response. But even so, 6 out of 10 sources feature content about unproven treatments prominently in any list of what Trump did wrong. To exclude this content because our own self-selected sources that we like don't mention it is not inline with our PAGs. These searches show our WP:HQRSes heavily cover this content, whenever discussing the overall landscape of what Trump did so poorly in response to COVID. We should, therefore, also cover it. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 17:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I provided the Lancet, NIH and Columbia University studies as high quality tertiary RS. Tertiary sources such as those, when available, are far more useful than subjective impressions of what is dominant in secondary or more nearly contemporaneous sources. That is particularly true when we are talking about a single sentence that summarizes our already-summary article content. SPECIFICO talk 22:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Overall, I think this discussion has run its course, as Jayron32 has said below. But since we're still discussing FRINGE topics and scholarly sourcing, there are a few things I want to set straight, things that any editor should know:

Please do not say that what you've linked is an "NIH" study or an "NIH publication". It is not. What you have linked is an observational study and therefore a WP:PRIMARY research article. It is not published by the NIH. It is authored by two scientists from McGill and York University in Canada, reviewed by academics from Florida State University and Salahaddin University-Erbil in Kurdistan, edited by an academic from the University of Victoria in Canada, and published by a journal based in Toronto, Canada.

This article is only shown on PubMed Central because the journal is indexed by MEDLINE. In fact, right at the top of the page is a disclaimer which reads: As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.

The Lancet article you've linked is not WP:TERTIARY. It is itself relying on primary sources (e.g. citations 15-19, 21, 24, 25, 28, 32, 35, 37-41, etc etc.) As a result, it is secondary. It is likely reliable as a statement from that commission, but it does not appear to be peer- or editorially-reviewed, or represent the position of the Lancet itself. Similar to how we have dealt with the Lancet covid origins commission. These commissions are heavily biased by the POVs of the commission members, and do not undergo the formal review that a society position statement or policy document typically does. It rises and falls totally on the credentials and care of its authors. And, like many secondary publications, we have no indication of how much it represents the overall state/assessment of the field. It also appears to be focused on "public policy" which, of course, would not include tweets about hydroxychloroquine as these do not represent any formal policy mechanism. The report also does not mention Trump's statements re: testing which I would argue (and you have argued) is DUE for the lead. You have proposed the Columbia report, which I agree is very useful. But so is the Cornell report I linked above. We have no reason to prefer Columbia's over Cornell's for these purposes.

As I said, I think this discussion has run its course, and I will not be responding any further, unless requested. Have a nice day! —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 12:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

When we are discussing content related to false or tiny minority views, tertiary sourcing and non-contemporaneous secondary sourcing are much better than contemporaneous or recent news reporting. This helps us avoid talk page discussions that rely on the judgment of WP editors instead of expert evaluation. The Lancet study is quite useful in that regard. I did not propose any specific sourcing or text for the article, and I do not know what other or better tertiary sources may be found. My point was that with the benefit of time, there are now more comprehensive summaries available to avoid long subjective discussions among editors. Incidentally, one thing this page has not mentioned is the effect of the Trump Administration's having deprioritized preparedness for outbreaks such as the recent pandemic. That's an example of a significant factor that is less discussed in contemporaneous news sources but may be important content for the encyclopedia. SPECIFICO talk 13:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Trump thought the shutdown would be bad for him politically and deployed numerous strategies to deny the seriousness of the pandemic, resulting in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary American Deaths. ^{citation needed} Anon0098 ( talk) 05:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

See e.g. the Woodward publications and sources discussed in the talk archives. That is not necessarily the wording we would use verbatim in the brief lead mention. The weight of RS, including peer reviewed sources support that presentation. But two-three years later, editors should not be substituting our judgment how to prioritize the central narrative when we have increasing numbers of tertiary expert overviews of his behavior. SPECIFICO talk 11:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• This entire issue is quickly becoming a WP:TLDR problem, and reaching WP:BIKESHED-levels of debate-relative-to-importance. The problem is that we're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good here. In nit-picking the tiny minutiae of the sentence in question, it feels like everyone is putting in far too much work for far too little end result. The current sentence, as of my writing, is "He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, used political pressure to interfere with testing efforts, and spread misinformation about unproven treatments." That sentence is true, reflects the text in the body, and lacks any obvious problems with writing that makes it hard to understand. In short it's fine as it is. Could it be made better, well, no, but not because of "better" not existing, but because "made" is not possible. More plainly: There's no way this group of editors, working in this manner, is going to do anything that's going to make any reasonable improvements on a single sentence which lacks any major problems in content, tone, appropriateness, or grammar. Let it drop is my suggestion. It's good enough as it is, and it feels like there are bigger fish to fry. -- Jayron 32 18:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  Seconded. We should just move on. As I said above, "Too much time is being devoted to such a non-issue". Cessaune [talk] 01:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  I would completely second this. I regret that a compromise couldn't have been reached—I can't help but feel like one should have been reached, but I think the extended discussion made perfect the enemy of the good. The current version of the article is fine.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  Since compromise is the issue, I'll go back to what I said initially and support your compromise over the current version. Since don't think it's ideal, since both the sources I initially cited treat "unproven treatments" as one example of several, not the main takeaway, but it's still better than nothing. DFlhb ( talk) 07:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I have made some additions to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias, so don't forget to check and improve it. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 16:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to wade too deep into that page (I was happy with the original, but I wrote it). I will say this: It started at 1,668 bytes, and I thought it was pretty good. I worked fairly hard to keep it at a size that would actually be read, which meant touching on only the most important points and not trying to "help" too much. Through a series of "improvements", it's now at 4,137 bytes, a 148% increase. I don't feel particularly good about that. And that's all I have to say about that. ― Mandruss  ☎ 17:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, with apologies, I'd oppose this extension; I've reverted it for now. For everyone to see, this was the addition [5]—chiefly, it was a list of reasons why an editor might have been pointed to the page. ("[Y]our complaint was closed because it was problematic for one or more of the following reasons:....") I have two broad issues with the additions. First, I agree with Mandruss that there's a length issue. Second, I find a few of the specific causes spelled out problematic.

Frankly, there are more than a few points there that I find a bit dubious: For example, It revealed you mistakenly believed that any bias was coming from editors, rather than being an accurate documentation of the bias found in those sources."? That's presented as a reason which—by itself—could warrant closure. But ... what? So the editors on this page are incapable of accidentally introducing bias, and a user who suggests that they have introduced bias gets their discussion closed? To be clear, I realize that's not what @ Valjean meant to say, but that was the literal text.

When we discussed closing discussions, above, I mentioned to @ Mandruss that I had some concern about edge cases—in short, I was mostly fine with the policy suggested, but I was worried about how broadly it would be applied. Again bearing in mind that the reasons that were listed were reasons that—per the text—could independently warrant closure ... my conerns would be greatly exacerbated by that expansion. It revealed you do not know how to vet sources for reliability. ... An editor that proposes a source—even a poor one—is far from the type of bad faith / NOTHERE / forum-seeking editor that I understood the message and the policy to apply to. Finally, I think the phrasing here is a bit problematic: It revealed you did not realize that our sources and content are allowed to be biased, as long as that bias is from the reliable sources we use.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 17:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Gotta say, I quite like the version of that page as written. As Mandruss said, it's more likely to actually be read in full, particularly by those that need to read it. I really don't like the pre-generated list of reasons calling out someone's complaint as "problematic"; I can feel a lack of WP:AGF coming through there. PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 13:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Got to agree with PhotogenicScientist, sorry Valjean. starship .paint ( exalt) 15:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand. No problem. What we need is a generic one that can be used for all controversial articles that get these drive-by, unconstructive, rants. Figure out the central points that apply everywhere and create one. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 17:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I can see the benefit in that. Though, the more generalized you make some reference material, the less impactful it tends to be. We already have lots of reference material telling editors why their drive-by comments are unproductive, not welcome, etc... the policies and guidelines. But, those aren't being read before many editors post here.

One of the strengths of that page is that it's NOT generic - it's very pointed, and specific to this article. In that way, it's harder to ignore. PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 17:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Two very good points. ― Mandruss  ☎ 10:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I'd actually suggest going in the opposite direction and shortening the text. This edit would cut about 25 words.

Just my two cents.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 18:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Under the post-presidency tab and indictments section, it says Donald Trump was indicted by a Miami Federal Court on May 8. Per the source provided, it was June 8. Easy fix. Thanks. Rane43 ( talk) 15:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Great catch!-- Jerome Frank Disciple 15:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Please add the fact that Trump pleads not guilty to 37-count indictment in classified documents case. Hondabenle ( talk) 07:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 07:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Falsely accused should just say accused and remove falsely to remain bias. 2600:1012:B140:A98C:55D4:286E:4D0C:1E5C ( talk) 23:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more specific? I can't find "falsely accused" in the article.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 23:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd also add that, if an accusation was described in reliable sources as false, then it would appropriate for us to label it so much. The label "false" is not inherently biased.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 23:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering what you think of adding his campaign website alongside his official website. We have President Biden’s campaign website in the infobox and I think it would be good to add the website. Interstellarity ( talk) 11:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this is probably right. Ron DeSantis and Joe Biden both list their official websites (that is: http://rondesantis.com/ ... and http://joebiden.com/ ), which double as their campaign websites. Here, we list https://www.45office.com/ , which we call the "official website" ... but we should probably list https://www.donaldjtrump.com/ for consistency. Went ahead and swapped it out.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Support. The "45office.com" website is practically empty and was seemingly abandoned a few months after its creation (created March 2021, last news item dated July 2021). donaldjtrump.com is his real official site. DFlhb ( talk) 14:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Support donaldtrump.com. But, I never have liked the practice of including websites for people in general. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 22:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Before making another faux pas such as posting an archive link for a story from The Washington Post, I'll ask if it's okay to replace the link to the Post story about Trump's ranking with a link to an alternate source, perhaps one of the following:

• Smithsonian Magazine story
• Chattanooga Times Free Press story

Fabrickator ( talk) 07:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The lede of the article contains the following sentence: “He won the 2016 presidential election as the Republican nominee against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton despite losing the popular vote.”

In the United States, winning the electoral college vote while losing the popular vote is a perfectly legitimate way in which to win. The use of the word “despite” seems to me to be suggesting otherwise; as though Trump should not have won because of his loss in the popular vote. Obviously this was not the editor’s intention—at least not consciously or deliberately—but my interpretation of it remains the same. This is exacerbated by the inclusion of supplementary information about the electoral college only in an explanatory footnote, which could seriously mislead or confuse readers who do not open it. I propose this sentence be rephrased.

I also take issue with the inclusion of an unlinked “Republican” and an unlinked “Democratic”. These are not preceded by any other mentions of the major U.S. parties and could perfectly well be unclear to non-U.S. readers. I propose they be changed to “ Republican Party” and “ Democratic Party”.

Asperthrow ( talk) 23:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I think "despite" is a fair term there. I disagree that it casts doubts on the legitimacy of the election. Rather, it's an acknowledgment that it's relatively rare for electoral college victors to not win at least a plurality of the popular vote. We have a similar passage for the last person to pull it off: George W. Bush: In the 2000 United States presidential election, he defeated Democratic incumbent vice president Al Gore, despite losing the popular vote after a narrow and contested win that involved a Supreme Court decision to stop a recount in Florida.

As to wikilcnks ... I think the American two-party system is well known enough that wikilinks to the Democratic Party and the Republican Party qualify as common terms. Still, I wouldn't strongly oppose linking.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 23:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like an unreasonable expectation of wider knowledge of the subject from readers. A leap of faith, even. Were this the case, the explanatory footnote would surely mention it. After all; that would be its purpose.

I think it’s best not to assume what is common knowledge to you is also so for someone from Kazakhstan, for instance. Not least because this is one of the most read Wikipedia articles around the world. Anything to make it clearer to non-U.S. readers which doesn’t compromise anything else should be included. Asperthrow ( talk) 23:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

As to the "despite" passage—it is mentioned later in the article: "Trump received nearly 2.9 million fewer popular votes than Clinton, which made him the fifth person to be elected president while losing the popular vote." And, again, we use the same word choice for the GWBush article.

As to the MOS:OVERLINK question, I really don't care strongly either way.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 23:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes — my issue isn’t with the facts of the election but rather the word “despite”. A large number of readers won’t read that part of the body but will certainly read the top of the third paragraph. The phrasing of that sentence alone I characterise as misleading and suggestive.

If the linking isn’t contentious, I’m putting in an edit request for it to be instated. Asperthrow ( talk) 00:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it wouldn't be that controversial to switch out "despite" with something similar like "while"—the passage in the article uses while. I don't find it extremely necessary, but I don't see anything wrong with it.

See this RfC. It took an entire RfC just to add ten links to the lead. No chance generic stuff like "Republican" or "Democrat" are going to be linked. That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to linking those phrases at all. However, there are less widely understood and more important things IMO to link— populist, protectionist, isolationist, nationalist, and building a wall, to name a few. Cessaune [talk] 00:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm also fine with while! Good suggestion. That said, the last thing I want to do is end up in some prolonged discussion over "despite" vs. "while" ... so with that, I'm dipping out of this section :) (I have enough concerns to deal with above!)-- Jerome Frank Disciple 00:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand the significance of this article but it really is moderated to the point of absurdity. Most of the links were removed around two years ago in an RfC using SEAOFBLUE as justification, which seems like making changes for the sake of making changes. There isn’t a discussion or consensus of that kind on any other article as far as I’m aware; to have such specific terms unlinked.

I’m happy to engage in an RfC at some point to bring improvements to the article; for now I’m requesting the aforementioned sentenced be changed to “He won the 2016 presidential election as the Republican Party nominee, defeating Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton while losing the popular vote to her.” Alongside the current explanatory footnote at the end. Asperthrow ( talk) 01:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I support putting in "while" over despite. Maybe another suggestion could "while at the same time..." Don't know if that's better but I support some sort of change. The Capitalist forever ( talk) 00:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Asperthrow, changing "despite" to "while", would be acceptable. I can see how "despite", would somehow erroneously make it appear as though his victory in 2016 was unconstitutional. GoodDay ( talk) 01:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay! Per unanimity here, I'll go ahead and make the change—I'm going to omit the "to her" at the end of the popular vote; since no other candidates are mentioned, I think it's implied. I'm also going to use "while" instead of "while at the same time" (since I think that's redundant)-- Jerome Frank Disciple 01:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@ Jerome Frank Disciple:, don't worry about my suggestion. Just an idea. The Capitalist forever ( talk) 01:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Add this to the home page.

In June 2023, he was indicted for a second time, relating to the holdings of classified government documents. SergioR3318 ( talk) 00:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

He was just indicted again on I believe 7 accounts, any updates to this would be good Los Pobre ( talk) 00:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

A user has already added the second indictment. [6] The wording is in flux, but I added the indictment to the lead and altered the body mention (because a few of the details the previous user offered weren't in the source provided) [7]-- Jerome Frank Disciple 00:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@ Space4Time3Continuum2x and TheThomanski: I agree with TheThomonanski's partial revert of Space here. ( Space's edit). I would have actually supported a full revert. Before the federal indictment, the fact that Trump was the first president indicted on criminal charges was in the lead. After the indictment, it was changed to first "indicated on criminal charges" with a link to the state prosecution (and details about the fraud charges) and first "indicted on federal charges" with a link to the federal prosecution page. I changed it to: In 2023, Trump became the first former U.S. president to face state criminal charges and the first to face federal criminal charges. In March, a Manhattan grand jury indicted him on 34 felony counts of fraud, and he was federally indicted in June in relation to his handling of classified documents.. The first sentence was removed because it was a "stat" and "developing story", neither of which I consider legitimate points.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 12:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Over at phab:T337071, Matma Rex said:

(By the way, just look at all this text in the screenshots… ain't nobody reading all that. I had to resize the browser just to show the two messages I am describing. The notice about old revisions is not the only problem here. As long as there is just so much useless text, people will not read it, and will miss the important messages, even if – especially if! – we make them even bigger.)

He's got a point. In VisualEditor, the 2017 text editor, or in any editor on a narrow screen, this looks roughly like:

Notice about sources This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism; see more information on sources. Never use self-published sources about a living person unless written or published by the subject; see WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, see this page.

You are subject to additional rules when you edit this page. If you do not follow these rules, you may be blocked from editing: You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a contentious topic. Pages related to this contentious topic are subject to additional rules as authorized by the Arbitration Committee. Before editing, please familiarize yourself with the contentious topic policy.

Please review current established consensus before editing this article, especially the lead section. Changes against established consensus without prior discussion can be reverted on sight.

Is there anything that can be trimmed a bit here? Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 00:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Would making them into footnotes help? GoodDay ( talk) 01:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

All of these are already covered in the talk page banners, the only one that's really important in my opinion is the contentious topic notice. Can we remove the rest? –– FormalDude (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Shouldn't this discussion be taking place someplace else? The BLP edit intro template is " injected into the edit URL by MediaWiki:Common.js." And that page says that it is the JavaScript for all users. Any changes to this page should first be proposed on its talk page or the Village pump. The notice Matma Rex was complaining about doesn't seem useless to me as they were about to edit an old revision of the page. That's an important message, IMO, just like the following notices. The notices about sources are applicable to all BLPs, the BRD notice and the extended-confirmed protection notice (missing in the screenshot) to all pages where they apply. The other two are local rules that I think should keep popping up above the editing window. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I misunderstood the quote without the context. Magma Rex was saying that You are editing an old revision of this page. If you publish it, any changes made since then will be removed. You may wish to edit the current revision instead was the important message getting lost in the crowd. The solution to this problem seems easy to me: replace editing for old revisions with viewing and copying only. One less banner to ignore for editors who don't/won't read the banners. If someone inadvertently edits an old revision, the edit can be reverted, and on this page it will be noticed and reverted. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Isn't that a fundamental property of MediaWiki software? I wouldn't even know how to start going about proposing a change like that. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 15:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know. I'd suggest Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) or a look at the feature requests how-to. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be an "unintended behavior" problem of the visual editor, using the Donald Trump page as an example, that ended with the "by the way ... useless text" opinion quoted above. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, a discussion of what should happen when you try to edit an old revision is off-topic for this page. The point is that with a message that long, no one is reading all of it. Whichever part you think is important, be it the "editingold" notice or the BLP notice or the CTOPS notice, is likely not having the intended effect. Can we at least remove the last part, about the related pages? Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 18:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes I would support removing the "Consensus" notice and the "related articles" notice. Anyone who these would affect is likely not reading them, imo. And anyone who is reading them is likely also reading the talk page notices, which include both. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 18:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Since I complained, I guess I should suggest changes, even though I'm not very active as an editor here. I'd start with:

• Entirely removing the last banner (Want to add new information about Donald Trump? … Thanks!) – most of those links are not even relevant in the current year, he's not making new presidential trips any more…
• Removing unneeded text from the 2nd banner (You are subject to…, If you do not follow these rules…, This page is related to post-1992 politics…) – only leaving the important message You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle… – maybe just link the policy below it (one link, please, not four)

I would also cut the BLP notice a lot, but I take the point that this isn't the venue, and this would take more thought. But surely, it is possible to state the rules without linking to nine separate pages! No one will click those nine links. If you have one link, there is a chance some folks will click it.

Thanks for starting the discussion, Suffusion of Yellow. Matma Rex talk 02:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we should also probably clue in the editors/admins who added these: @ JFG [8], @ Coffee [9]. Given the proliferation of editnotices on this, and the concerns above, would you be okay with our proposed removals?

I would agree with your proposed edits, @ Matma Rex. I think we can probably do the "last banner" (new information) as a WP:BOLD action or at the very least, after a consensus-showing talk page discussion, but I'm not sure about the 2nd banner, would that need an admin to do it? Or to somehow log the edit in ARCA's enforcement logs? Forgive my ignorance of how these things work re: ARCA sanction enforcement. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 15:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I would also second all of the edits proposed, particularly as to the last banner.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 15:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Anyone brave enough to apply the changes? Matma Rex talk 21:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I put in an edit request. At first, I tried to capture both of your bullet points above, but then I realized that your second edit concerned what appears to be default text in {{ American politics AE/Edit notice}} (see Template:Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice base). -- Jerome Frank Disciple 23:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@ Space4Time3Continuum2x So you're saying that Citation bot is blocking your "useful" edit of changing newspaper to work in the citation template, even for newspapers, because of the bytes it saves? [10] I also don't see anything at Wikipedia:citation templates that endorsees replacing newspaper with work, as you suggested here. If that were true, then why would the newspaper parameter exist at all? And, again, per {{ bots}}, have you filed a bug report with User:Citation bot?-- Jerome Frank Disciple 12:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Is it a bug or a feature? If you want to file a bug report, go for it. And I wrote that Replacing "work" with longer alternative "newspaper" for WaPo in this long article is not a useful bot edit. "Work" is one of the examples for citing newspaper articles in Wikipedia:Citation_templates: {{cite news | last = Andersen | first = David | last2 = Witter | first2 = Lameen | title = Former Marine, Go Daddy CEO... | work = Marine Corps News | date = 17 February 2006 | url = https://www.military.com/vet... | access-date = 6 June 2006}}. @ Mandruss: you rapped my knuckles years ago for replacing "work" with "newspaper". Would you care to weigh in? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see the knuckle rap, as it would help refresh my memory about what I cared about years ago. But |work= and its aliases all do exactly the same thing, so the aliases exist only to (1) add a degree of unnecessary complication to citation coding, as if editors needed more complication of anything, and (2) create more things for editors to argue about, as we see in this discussion. That's just poor system design in my opinion, and poor system design should be corrected. If I had my way, the aliases would be deprecated and the citation bot would be modified to convert all existing occurrences of the aliases to |work=. ― Mandruss  ☎ 13:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a decent point—starting from scratch, I'd probably just use work rather than the other parameters. I couldn't personally say why all of the citation templates have the other parameters—per Help:Citation_Style_1#Work_and_publisher, work is just aliased to newspaper in {{ cite news}}. I don't understand the Lua programming language at all, so I can't really make heads or tails of Module:Citation/CS1. I suppose we could ask at User talk:Citation bot? My best guess is, honestly, that most users prefer the more specific parameter, for whatever reason?

But, sort of regardless of all of that ... I'm quite dubious that the newspaper / work distinction is sufficient enough to warrant using the {{ bots}} to block User:Citation bot, and I also don't really think that doing so is consistent with the instruction on {{ bots}}, posted below.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

To whatever extent the citation bot represents community consensus (I don't know whether this is explicit or de facto consensus, which often exists merely because few editors both understand the issues and care about them enough to spend their time aggressively advocating something), it should probably be respected and the battle fought at community level. My personal solution was to stop caring about it. ― Mandruss  ☎ 14:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed!-- Jerome Frank Disciple 22:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

From {{ bots}}:

In particular, in the encyclopedia spaces:

• Avoid using the template as a blunt instrument
• Address the root problem with the bot owner or bot community
• Remove the template tag once the underlying problem has been resolved.

So your position it ... "but I don't LIKE that the newspaper parameter is longer, so I want to use the {{ bots}} template ... it's on YOU to address my reasoning with the bot owner"? Cool.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 12:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

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

I saw several mistakes in the Donald Trump article. He did not implement family seperation. That was Obama. He did not tell people to attack the government and only one person died. A Trump supporter. To say it is believed that his rhetoric causes racism is very unprofessional. Right now you will find doctors that say eggs are good and doctors that say eggs are bad. this kind of opinionated rhetoric has no bussiness in an educational forum. I am sure there are more, but I stopped after reading this misinformation. It is obvious a person with an agenda wrote this and it is very unprofressional for your organization to allow just anything to be written. People look to yall for information. This article needs to be heavilyedited with feelings removed. Ceejaystafford ( talk) 15:39, 21 June 2023 (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. — Czello ^{( music)} 15:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll also just respond to these in more detail, but Czello is absolutely right that you should present any proposed change in the format suggested:

• The relationship between the Trump immigration policy and the Bush and Obama immigration policies is discussed at Trump administration family separation policy#History. As of now, this article, in detailing that "[t]he policy of family separations was unprecedented in previous administrations", accurately reflects reliable sources discussing the subject. Whether we personally agree with those reliable sources isn't relevant.
• The article does not say Trump told people to "attack the government" on January 6.
• There is an RFC concerning the January 6 deaths above. There were multiple deaths, though, insofar as you mean to say only one death was ruled a homicide by the medical examiner, you are correct. In short, the article currently includes persons who either died on the scene or ultimately died of a medical issue experienced while on the scene—that includes persons who died by suicide and an accidental overdose on the scene and who died by a stroke suffered on the scene that ultimately proved fatal. The RFC above discusses whether to include the causes of death in this discussion. You are welcome to participate there.

-- Jerome Frank Disciple 15:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@ Ppt91: I just wanted to give you a heads up that I reverted your edit. I don't find anything particularly objectionable about what you added, but that particular line was very recently the subject of a fairly extensive debate ( fairly extensive debate (started May 18, 2023). While I usually think "this was discussed once" is a bad reason for reverting, I think the recency of that discussion makes discussion here the more advisable path.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 15:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@ Jerome Frank Disciple Thanks and I am happy to discuss this. I was aware of the recent discussion but I was under the impression that it focused primarily on his reactions and views as expressed during press conferences (often, of course, showing a flagrant disregard for science).

From my search of that talk thread, and correct me if I am wrong, CARES Act or Operation Warp Speed are not mentioned once. I strongly believe these need to be included in the lead as each had a major impact on the country and each was completed under his administration, Trump's own take on COVID-19 therapies and his dubious claims notwithstanding.

I imagine there is no opposition to adding these two items at the end of the existing sentence? (p.s. I do think "reacted slowly" does sound more subjective than "initial reaction sparked controversy", because Warp Speed began in late April; again, it's about maintaining balance between his own frustratingly contradictory rhetoric and his position as the chief executive). Ppt91 ^talk 16:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's unreasonable at all. One thing that I noticed in the discussion that you linked mentioned but didn't really have a consensus was the statement regarding a slow reaction. I think it may be best to change

He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, used political pressure to interfere with testing efforts, and spread misinformation about unproven treatments.

to

Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic faced criticism, as he frequently ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, used political pressure to interfere with testing efforts, and spread misinformation about unproven treatments.

This really only changed the front half. The way it's written now comes across more like an op-ed than it does an encyclopedia. - AquilaFasciata ( talk | contribs) 16:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Responding to both you and Ppt91 here: I apologize if I was too hasty to find that it had been somewhat addressed in the prior discussion: One aspect repeatedly discussed in the prior discussion was the length of the description—balancing inclusion of details with length—so I figured it was close enough to on point to apply.

One thing that you both bring up (that I think was previously discussed) is whether the description of the Trump admin's reaction to COVID 19 as "slow" is sufficiently objective. I think there is a distinction between subjectivity and relativity, and I think this qualifies as the latter: Based on the sources in the article, I do think that description comes from non-op-ed sources, which I think bolsters it and maybe suggests that we don't need to put it behind a "Trump was called" or "Trump was criticized as". That said, I don't feel particularly strongly as to this point, so I'll let others chime in.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 16:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@ AquilaFasciata Thanks. I am in favor of Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic faced criticism, as he frequently ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, used political pressure to interfere with testing efforts, and spread misinformation about unproven treatments. This sounds much more neutral. Just to clarify, were you opposed to adding CARES Act and Operation Warp Speed?

@ Jerome Frank Disciple I understand and appreciate the concerns you have voiced regarding length, but I do believe maintaining WP:NPOV and WP:V comes first even if it means slightly expanding the lead.

Ppt91 ^talk 16:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Well and to be clear, I was actually in favor of a longer version in the last discussion, I just think it was so heavily discussed that discussion here is warranted before changing the article.

I'm not sure your second point responds to mine, however. My question was: Is the description of Trump's reaction as slow actually a WP:NPOV issue? It's not a WP:V issue—the citations we have support it.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 16:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I tried responding to both at once, so apologies if I was imprecise. Yes, Trump's reaction described as slow is an NPOV issue to me and it places undue weight on his own opinions and statements (including Twitter) vs his role as the president. This is particularly the case when one considers the implementation of CARES Act and Operation Warp Speed. Ppt91 ^talk 16:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

This is particularly the case when one considers the implementation of CARES Act and Operation Warp Speed. Ah, I'm afraid that line of thinking concerns me, as it strikes me as an invitation to engage in WP:OR.

Per WP:DUE, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." In other words, content that accurately reflects the significant viewpoints in reliable sources (in proportion to their presence in those sources) is neutral. Of course, separately but relatedly, [b]iased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution ( WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV), but the question is whether the description of Trump as slow is a "biased statement[] of opinion".

We currently cite non-op-eds that characterize Trump's/the Trump administration's response as slow. So, in determining whether or not that descriptor is "neutral" or a "biased statement of opinion", I think the first question has to be: Do you have reliable sources (and, ideally, non-op-eds) that dispute that characterization?-- Jerome Frank Disciple 17:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@ Jerome Frank Disciple If that is OR, then we should remove Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 and every other similar item from the lead. As for "slow", WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV in my opinion does apply and a specific source should be cited to say described as "slow". In any case, you mentioned earlier that you would be open to hear other editors, so why don't we let them express their opinions. Ppt91 ^talk 17:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

In any case, you mentioned earlier that you would be open to hear other editors, so why don't we let them express their opinions.
Yes, and we should also not WP:BLUDGEON them by responding to each and every person who disagrees with us. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 17:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

This point was brought, however it was brief (I was only able to find it underneath "Alternative Approach" under this section. The only thing I was able to find was someone else pointing out that many countries were slow, and the speed of action isn't overly conspicuous, particularly when compared to the ramifications that are expanded upon later. I could have missed it, and if so please correct me.

As far as NPOV, I could accept that it is neutral if we were to give a "slow compared to what?" Stating that something is slow without context is ambiguous. I think if we were to add this, though, we would end up increasing the length further, which wouldn't be desired.

Additionally, there is no attributed sources in the lead to suggest that the statement even has . I know it isn't necessary, however both WP:BLP and MOS:LEADCITE both state that when a statement that could be challenged (like the discussion that we're in now) should be cited, even in the lead. - AquilaFasciata ( talk | contribs) 17:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

We don't attribute things like "slow" when multiple experts have said it. We WP:ASSERT it in wiki-voice, as our guidelines suggest we should. E.g.

—  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 17:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, do you have any reservations about the changes that I suggested? - AquilaFasciata ( talk | contribs) 18:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

... Doesn't your version also remove "slow"?-- Jerome Frank Disciple 18:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It does. I should have been more specific, my bad. I was asking what the object was to removing slow in the first place. I understand the idea behind why some may not see making this change as vital, but if it does help with what some would perceive to be a neutrality issue, I don't see any reason not to go with the edit I originally proposed. It doesn't change the message behind the sentence, only the way it comes off to the reader. - AquilaFasciata ( talk | contribs) 18:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Good revert. Per FRINGE we don't need to include positive things at every point we discuss negative things. We already talk about CARES and warp speed in the article. We don't need to overmention it just to fulfill some sense of "balance" i.e. see WP:FALSEBALANCE. The previous text as written was great and had consensus. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 16:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@ Shibbolethink This has nothing to do with FRINGE or FALSEBALANCE and everything to do with maintaining actual neutrality. As @ AquilaFasciata the last discussion did not show actual consensus on phrasing and "his response was slow" is more subjective than the proposed alternative, which makes it an WP:NPOV issue.

Moreover, the very purpose of a lead is to summarize content, so We already talk about CARES and warp speed in the article. meant that these two items should be mentioned. What makes them less worthy than mentioning the tax bill in the previous paragraph, for instance? You need to present a valid argument rather than exhibit flippant dismissal.

I am sorry to say this but this strikes me as a case of WP:OWN. Your responses are more in line with "I like the way it is now" than actual policies, while your use of phrases like good revert shows your disregard for other opinions and is one of the reasons as to why a lot of editors are driven away from this article.

I'd like to hear other editors take on Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic faced criticism, as he frequently ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, used political pressure to interfere with testing efforts, and spread misinformation about unproven treatments. Ppt91 ^talk 17:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

meant that these two items should be mentioned
Do you have reason (e.g. sources) to believe that these two things are always mentioned in our BESTSOURCES when Trump's response is mentioned?

This has nothing to do with FRINGE or FALSEBALANCE and everything to do with maintaining actual neutrality

WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE are both key guidelines and key parts of the WP:NPOV policy, so I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic faced criticism, as he frequently ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, used political pressure to interfere with testing efforts, and spread misinformation about unproven treatments.
This fails to WP:ASSERT expert consensus as fact and thus I don't prefer it. I prefer it to the version where we insert lots of UNDUE material, but I don't prefer it to the current version. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 17:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you mean by this that these specific guidelines within NPOV are irrelevant to what I was talking about and cherry picked by you to fit the defense of good revert
• Do you have reason (e.g. sources) to believe that these two things are always mentioned in our BESTSOURCES when Trump's response is mentioned? Here's one example: https://www.npr.org/2020/03/25/819125708/watch-white-house-to-hold-coronavirus-briefing-amid-stimulus-bill-uncertainty as for Warp Speed, the reason why I think it is important is because it is closely tied to his response, showing how duplicitous he was by disagreeing with scientists and promoting conspiracy theories while at the same time claiming ownership of a vaccine project for political gai

Ppt91 ^talk 17:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

More sources on the second point:

• on how Trump considered Warp Speed as central to his overall response https://www.newsweek.com/trump-vaccine-support-saved-lives-1774392 (Trump praised his administration for the Operation Warp Speed rollout of the vaccine and for helping save tens of millions of lives); https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/16/fauci-operation-warp-speed-trump-covid-response-00061990 (Slaoui said the Trump administration should take credit for most of the manufacturing and distribution of the vaccines); https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/1/18/23560407/operation-warp-speed-pandemics-vaccines-covid-white-house-biden-trump (One of the biggest accomplishments of the Trump administration — and yes, there were accomplishments — was Operation Warp Speed)
• and more recent showing how he's been struggling to navigate touting the project as his and the anti-vaccine and conspiracy theories of his base ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/trump-isnt-touting-his-biggest-success/2023/02/05/370a1572-a557-11ed-b2a3-edb05ee0e313_story.html)

Ppt91 ^talk 18:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

So, just to reiterate what I said above: We currently cite non-op-eds that characterize Trump's/the Trump administration's response as slow. So, in determining whether or not that descriptor is "neutral" or a "biased statement of opinion", I think the first question has to be: Do you have reliable sources (and, ideally, non-op-eds) that dispute that characterization?

You've provided several sources, but none of them contradict the "slow" statement in the lead, which, as the article indicates, largely relates to his failure to meaningfully respond in January and February.

Trump was slow to address the spread of the disease, initially dismissing the threat and ignoring persistent public health warnings and calls for action from health officials within his administration and Secretary Azar. Throughout January and February he focused on economic and political considerations of the outbreak, and largely ignored the danger. By mid-March, most global financial markets had severely contracted in response to the emerging pandemic.

In sum: The fact that Trump eventually did respond to the pandemic by fast-tracking vaccine development doesn't have much to do with how long it took him to respond.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 18:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@ Jerome Frank Disciple Two different conversations happening at the same time, but these articles are in reference to Do you have reason (e.g. sources) to believe that these two things are always mentioned in our BESTSOURCES when Trump's response is mentioned? for both CARES Act and Warp Speed in lead. Ppt91 ^talk 18:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah I see! My mistake.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 18:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@ Jerome Frank Disciple For the record, I am absolutely not challenging the assertion that the response was delayed. My issue has to do with considering the word "slow" as an undisputable statement of fact. While the delayed response is widely known, it is not on par with stating, for example, that He and his businesses have been plaintiff or defendant in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, including six corporate bankruptcies. The former can still be disputed as the very term "slow" is ambiguous, even if used repeatedly by WP:RS; the latter is a statement of fact that cannot be disputed.

That said, I am not fundamentally opposed to using the term "slow" as long as it can be slightly expanded to include more context, perhaps include two footnotes which would also be in line with the recommendation even for stating facts per guidelines in WP:ASSERT (It is good practice, however, to include an inline citation to a reliable source to allow the reader to verify any fact that is not widely known).

I am also concerned that this kind of assertion without context can be construed as partisan, especially by outside readers unfamiliar with en-wiki policies (including the one stating citations are not required in the lead). I have tremendous respect for the work @ Shibbolethink is doing in his area of expertise, but I think it is easy to lose sight of things when one is immersed in the material for an extended period of time. And I am certainly not impressed by attempts to qualify a revert like it's an administrator's block, or to be dismissive of other opinions. Ppt91 ^talk 18:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@ Ppt91: I think the issue is the strength of the sourcing wrt a source review of Trump's response and the context. I don't find the Newsweek source very reliable for this, but I agree the Politico and Vox sourcing show it's an important part of his presidency. Where I would disagree, though, is that it is clearly mentioned (always) in the same context as his slow response, spread of misinformation, or frequent disagreement with public health experts etc. I think you're right that we should mention Warp Speed and CARES in the lead, but I don't agree that this is the place to mention them. Perhaps these two things belong more in a sentence about Trump's achievements during his presidency? —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 15:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

You claim that slow is a fact (information that is accepted as true and about which there is no serious dispute) as oppposed to an opinion (a matter which is subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective), per ASSERT. Is "slow" a fact or not? I would argue that the word slow can only be subjective. Slow compared to what? Cessaune [talk] 08:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I would argue that the word slow can only be subjective. Slow compared to what? ... I'm not totally sure what the "compared to what?" Q has to do with objective vs. subjective. An evaluation can be relative and objective.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 11:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I would say the ASSERT argument is , it's a subjective assessment that many different experts have made. So we can and should ASSERT it in wiki voice. These experts are what determine the perspective of Wikipedia, even if we as individual editors may disagree. It has nothing to do with "facts". WP:NOTTRUTH —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 14:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think ASSERT is the right policy here, but I get the logic. Cessaune [talk] 15:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I think this article maybe understates Trump's effect on the Supreme Court, which is only loosely discussed, yet which is arguably the longest-lasting effect of his presidency. (I'm happy to find sources if anyone thinks that analysis is OR.)

Right now the article mentions justices in three spots: First, in the lead:

He appointed 54 federal appellate judges and three U.S. Supreme Court justices.

Second, under social issues (in the presidency section):

Trump said in 2016 that he was committed to appointing "pro-life" justices who would "automatically" overturn Roe v. Wade.

There's also a judiciary section which mentions the names of the justices Trump appointed but which otherwise focuses on Trump's attacks on the judiciary.

Yet Trump's SCOTUS appointees have had (and will likely continue to have) a major impact on subjects discussed in this article. Roe v. Wade was overturned by Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization—a 6-3 decision that featured all three Trump appointees in the majority. Religious liberty was expanded and gay rights were diminished by Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. Religious liberties were expanded and COVID restrictions were weakened in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo and Tandon v. Newsom. Environmental protections and the authority of regulatory agencies were diminished in West Virginia v. EPA; environmental protections were further restricted just today in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. And, as several agencies have noted, the Supreme Court has recently agreed to revisit Chevron deference—potentially kneecapping federal agencies—when it granted cert in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.

The judicial shift that occurred under Trump has prompted discussions of court reform and court packing—a subject which was last given serious consideration when FDR was president. Of course, I'm not saying each of these issues should be mentioned, and to be honest I'm not sure how this should all be addressed. At the very least, I think Dobbs should mentioned, in light of the reference to Roe that's already in the article, but, before I added that, I wanted to see what other editors thought of both that addition and perhaps others. (I'd also say that most content should go in the Judiciary section)-- Jerome Frank Disciple 18:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Hmm... based on consensus item #37, I would say it merits at least mention in this article. HOWEVER, I think the better place to start writing about this topic would be at Presidency_of_Donald_Trump#Judicial_appointments. That I think is the best section to discuss the lasting impact of his judicial appointments (on both his presidential legacy and the country), and at present that section is rather scant. You've identified a lot of good topics for coverage. If that section is brushed up more, it'll probably become apparent what is appropriate for mention in this article. PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 20:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

There was a time when the article said Trump shifted the judiciary to the right. In the past year or so it was scrubbed (I'm assuming to trim). I think there should be some mention of what JFD is describing. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 22:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@ PhotogenicScientist and Iamreallygoodatcheckers: How about this as a start (note, this would involve moving the Roe v. Wade comment from social issues to the judiciary section). I don't love the wording, but I think it works: It mentions the rightward shift and it mentions Roe and Dobbs, the former of which was previously discussed in another part of the article. (I think it's fair to, for now, single out Roe, the overturning of which was probably the most significant decision made in the new era of the Supreme Court.)

Trump appointed 226 Article III judges, including 54 to the courts of appeals and three to the Supreme Court: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. ^[1] Trump's Supreme Court nominees were noted as having politically shifted the Supreme Court to the right. ^{[2] [3]} In 2016, Trump had promised to nominate " pro-life" justices who would "automatically" overturn Roe v. Wade. ^[4] Roe was ultimately overturned a year after Trump left office in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization; each of Trump's nominees joined the majority in the 6-3 decision. ^[5]

-- Jerome Frank Disciple 16:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@ Jerome Frank Disciple: the first two sentences are good. The issue with the last two is they constitute synthesis. Connecting his judicial appointments and campaign statements to the Dobbs decision by yourself is original research. You are going to need to find references that (1) make this connection on their own and (2) establish due weight for mentioning the connection in this biography. The connection can not be made by us. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 22:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

You sure that's synthesis? All I say is that Trump promised to nominate pro-life justices who would overturn Roe, and, in the next sentence, that Roe was overturned. Both of those sentences are supported, and I've never seen WP:SYNTH invoked to be like "you can't put those sentences next to eachother". Think about how that rule would work in practice—we see paragraphs all the time that cite multiple sources within the paragraph. Do new need to make sure one source has all the adjacent sentences?

To be clear, both the sentences are fully supported. The first one was already there, and the second one comes from this in the Times: The Supreme Court on Friday overturned Roe v. Wade, eliminating the constitutional right to abortion after almost 50 years .... It will also be one of the signal legacies of President Donald J. Trump, who vowed to name justices who would overrule Roe. All three of his appointees were in the majority in the ruling.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 00:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

If you do want a source mentioning both in the same article, I did find one ... but the more I think about it ... the more I'm confident that this isn't a WP:SYNTH issue. Put it this way: Would there be an issue if one part of the article contained the third sentence and one part of the article contained the second? Of course not. So the question is "Can those two sentences, both about Roe v. Wade be next eachother?" ... and I think the answer is "of course". We group topics into sections, subsections, and paragraphs all the time. It's not an improper original analysis to do so, and there's no original analysis in saying (1) Trump said he wanted to nominate justices who would overturn Roe; (2) Roe was overturned, and every justice Trump nominated was in the majority.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 00:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, as obvious as it may be, and he has bragged about it recently; it looks like SYNTH. Must be one source that does the SYNTH for us in one article -- which is acceptable. Or, we can use his own statements. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 00:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry added this: Put it this way: Would there be an issue if one part of the article contained the third sentence and one part of the article contained the second? Of course not. So the question is "Can those two sentences, both about Roe v. Wade, be next eachother?" ... and I think the answer is "of course".

Either way, also found a source that does group them! The Week magazine [11] -- Jerome Frank Disciple 00:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

So, using The Week:

Trump appointed 226 Article III judges, including 54 to the courts of appeals and three to the Supreme Court: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. ^[1] Trump's Supreme Court nominees were noted as having politically shifted the Supreme Court to the right. ^{[2] [3]} In the 2016 campaign, Trump pledged that Roe v. Wade would be overturned "automatically" if he were elected and provided the opportunity to appoint two or three pro-life justices. In 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization; all three of Trump's Supreme Court nominees voted with the majority. ^{[4] [5]}

I also included the New York Times story as a backup since it, as quoted above, also mentions Trump's vow to appoint pro-life justices and the fact that all three of the justices he nominated were in the majority.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 00:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The Week source is not enough to establish a significant connection by reliable sources between Dobbs and Trump for mentioning in this article. It's simply not enough, but I'm going to try and look some more.

You are arguing above that it's not SYNTH; so, I'll try to address your concerns. We have two things: Trump vowed in his campaign to appoint justices who would overturn Roe and (2) the Supreme Court overturned Roe in 2022. I think this is actually quite comparable to the example at WP:SYNTH: The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world. This structure makes it appear as though the UN is failing at maintaining peace without any sourcing for that; hence, it's original research. Now I'm going to turn this into what we got here: Donald Trump vowed to appoint justices to overturn Roe, and in 2022 Roe was overturned. This structure makes it appear as though Trump is responsible for Roe overturning or it's important for his legacy. Now, your proposal has this in two sentences, but functionally it's the exact same. This is original research. I hate to delve into the hypothetical (because it's the role of RS to do so) but maybe reliable sources don't see it as Trump's legacy -- they could see it as Mitch McConnells, the Robert's Court, etc. I mention all this not to say that Dobbs is not part of Trump's, but to say that ultimately it's up to RS to establish such a claim, not Wikipedia editors. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 03:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Except both the Week and the New York Times mention Trump's prior vow to overturn Roe in their stories on Dobbs. The point of the SYNTH example is that the second source (supporting the red) doesn't mention the United Nations.

maybe reliable sources don't see it as Trump's legacy ... Sorry, that word choice has thrown me, because I haven't used the term legacy ... except for when I was quoting the NYT, above: It will also be one of the signal legacies of President Donald J. Trump, who vowed to name justices who would overrule Roe. All three of his appointees were in the majority in the ruling. Did you think I was suggesting that text? (If so, my fault—I was using the tq template for both)-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, here's what I'm thinking. I think The Week and New York Times (especially together) are enough to say it's not SYNTH, but they are not enough to establish significance (or weight) for the text you are proposing. They can not establish that among the most significant and broad effects of Trump's SCOTUS nominees is the overruling of Roe -- this is what I meant by "legacy." Who are we to say that Roe's reversal is worth a mention in Trump's bio? Why not mention Bruen? or the many other landmark decisions the nominees by Trump have orchestrated and will do in the future?

I think with The Week and New York Times sources are good enough for us to add either a note or a sentence clause on the existing sentence (Trump said in 2016 that he was committed to appointing "pro-life" justices who would "automatically" overturn Roe v. Wade.) regarding this issue in the "social issues" subsection. But, again, for it to make it into the impact on Trump to judiciary more reliable sources are going to need to point to this as being particularly significant. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 22:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean the Times saying it might be one of his "signal legacies" is pretty square on that point. Here's CNN saying Trump's lasting legacy will be Roe's overturning. [12]. Here's the AP noting that Roe's overturning is part of Trump's legacy. [13] There's also Trump himself taking credit for Roe's reversal, which was widely covered. [14] [15] [16] [17]. So we have the Week tying the decision to Trump's campaign promise; the Times doing the same and also calling Dobbs one of Trump's "signal legacies"; and CNN and the AP saying Dobbs is part of Trump's legacy. For me, that's more than enough—requiring more would be applying a standard here that we don't apply to the rest of the article.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 23:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I've suggested a compromise of saying that Roe is overruled in the social issues subsection. Is this something you have considered supporting? Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 02:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see what you're saying now—I apologize I think I misunderstood before my last post. I absolutely respect your opinion, but I pretty strongly think the detail more naturally belongs in the judiciary section, and, I have to be honest, the idea that it's a WP:WEIGHT issue if it's in the judiciary section but not if it's in the social issues section ... seems a bit bizarre to me. Would you mind if we get a WP:3O? I'd absolutely be happy to abide by whatever that user suggests!-- Jerome Frank Disciple 02:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, Objective3000 has already opined some in this discussion, as well as PhotogenicScientist. Considering that, I don't know if this qualifies for 3O. I've never seen a 30 on the Trump talk before. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 06:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@ Iamreallygoodatcheckers I think you misunderstand the scope of WP:SYNTH. Its goal (stated concisely, in the first two sentences) is: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If there is no original "conclusion" presented by the article, there is no SYNTH. As I see it, JFD's version clearly does not reach a conclusion; the sentences are completely separate (and both sourced), and there are no linking words like "and" or "thus", like there are in the UN example from the policy you quoted.

Then, does JFD's version imply an original conclusion? Also no. The NYT source cited writes It will also be one of the signal legacies of President Donald J. Trump, who vowed to name justices who would overrule Roe - that conclusion is cited, and not SYNTH. That conclusion becomes stronger with the addition of another source, like that from The Week.

^ But, that's also explained at WP:SYNTHNOTJUXTAPOSITION. PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 14:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think there is a SYNTH issue with the current sourcing present. As I said above. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 14:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@ Jerome Frank Disciple The issue, as ever with this article, is how to ensure content is focused primarily on "Donald Trump: The Man" and not "Donald Trump: The President". To that end, in my opinion, whatever is included in this article should be traceable back to Trump's beliefs/character/etc OR his lasting legacy, not just any ol' campaign promises/administration actions/etc. BUT I recognize that in practice, that is INCREDIBLY difficult to discern (because the man says so much on any and all topics, and has a long history of saying new things that seemingly contradict his previous self... well, we all know the guy at this point).

That said, I think your paragraph is good as-is. The only recommendation I'd have is to provide good sources on the sentence: In the 2016 campaign, Trump pledged that Roe v. Wade would be overturned "automatically" if he were elected and provided the opportunity to appoint two or three pro-life justices. It's apparent to me that Trump is/was (at least somewhat) personally invested in seeing Roe v. Wade overturned; I think the most efficient way to demonstrate that to all readers is if that sentence were sourced. Any articles from RS would do (prefer to use multiple, since people object to single-source characterizations of Trump) - but I found these two [18] [19]. PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 13:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd largely agree with that, and I surely don't think every case should be elaborated on. But his impact is surely part of who he is; after all, we do have an extremely long section on his presidency, and, per the NYT source, Dobbs was one of the "signal legacies" of his presidency. It would seem pretty natural, then, to put it in the Judiciary section. (Also the green sentence you've tq'd is already in the article; are you saying that the sources I provided don't sufficiently support that sentence? I thought The Week was pretty direct there.)-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Shoot I realize I've been super unhelpful in not quoting the relevant portion of The Week article: During a 2016 presidential debate, Trump predicted that Roe v. Wade (1973), which established abortion as a constitutional right, would be overturned "automatically" if he were elected and given the chance to "put another two or perhaps three" pro-life justices on the Supreme Court. The Times article, in relevant part, says: Dobbs] will also be one of the signal legacies of President Donald J. Trump, who vowed to name justices who would overrule Roe. All three of his appointees were in the majority in the ruling. Jerome Frank Disciple 14:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see - this is just an issue of where to put the sources, then. But, since both the NYT and The Week can be cited for BOTH the first sentence and the second, you're right: those citations can go after the second sentence, and the first sentence doesn't need a citation.

I was honestly just trying to play devil's advocate and nitpick to see what COULD be considered wrong by anyone reading. Uncited sentences (in biographies, especially contentious ones) have a tendency to accrue SYNTH complaints. So, this NBC source could be added there (or elsewhere) to bolster the connection between Trump's 2016 campaign statements and himself - or it could be left off. Up to you, I think. PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 14:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

No worries! I invited the confusion when I failed to quote the Week—my mistake. I think the NBC source can and should absolutely be added! On that note, since I think you've effectively provided the 3O, I'll go ahead an add the paragraph (with the NBC source) into the article.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@ Space4Time3Continuum2x, PhotogenicScientist, and Iamreallygoodatcheckers:: Space has reverted the entire change. I don't want to run amok of 1R, but since both of you also agreed with the change (at least in part), would one of you mind reverting, for all the reasons we addressed above?-- Jerome Frank Disciple 12:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, the reasoning for the reverts aren't impressive.

1. As to "Trump's Supreme Court nominees were noted as having politically shifted the Supreme Court to the right."
   1. First, Space removed the Linda Greenhouse quotation because it was an opinion (an opinion by probably the most famous SCOTUS reporter in the past 20 years but okay) and she said "I think" ... cool. [20]
   2. Then Space removed the entire sentence because it: Fails verification. The cited source says that "numbers shifted" with Barrett but mentions Trump only in one sentence while mentioning Senate Republicans several times ("refused to even hold a hearing for … Obama’s Supreme Court nominee", "Trump and Senate Republicans hurried to compete the nomination and confirmation of … Barrett … and argued that it was Trump’s right".) Of course, that's all nonsense. The sentence was that Trump's nominees shifted the Court to the right. The numbers shifted with Barrett and Trump nominated Barrett. [21]
   3. If anyone thinks we do need more sources for the shift to the right, there are plenty. Here are just a few:
      1. "[Trump's justices] will likely outlive Trump. They will likely ensure a conservative tilt for decades to come. And they will likely mark one of the most dramatic ideological turnarounds the court has seen in such a short timespan in generations." Politico
      2. VOA article: "Trump’s Lasting Legacy: Conservative Supermajority on Supreme Court" (quotes Melissa Murray, who discusses the impact of a 6-3 rather than a 5-4 court) [22]
      3. "Trump's imprint on the Supreme Court and overall three-tier federal judiciary represents one of the most significant right-wing successes of his tenure, even as his instigation of the US Capitol assault and final destructive days appear to be leaving the most indelible mark of his legacy." CNN
      4. "The Court was already split along political and ideological lines before Trump. And its makeup already had been heavily influenced by the conservative agenda led by the Federalist Society, founded in the early 1980s. But the Trump presidency and the forceful influence of his three Supreme Court appointees propelled the judiciary into a new period of polarization." Nine Black Robes: Inside the Supreme Court's Drive to the Right and Its Historic Consequences by Joan Biskupic ( excerpt (with that quote)).
2. As to the pledge statement and Dobbs (removed here):
   1. "He didn’t pledge, he said he would if given the opportunity." ... ... ...
      If a politician on a campaign trail says they're going to do something if elected, it's very common to describe that as a pledge, promise, or commitment. For example, this, from the NBC article @ PhotogenicScientist: provided: "Trump campaigned in 2016 on eliminating Roe v. Wade, saying he would appoint “pro-life” judges who would overturn it. He made good on that promise by picking Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett."
   2. Campaign-related content ("said on Friday", "said in 2016 pres. debate", "took credit Wednesday for the elimination of Roe v. Wade" at NH campaign event) should go in campaign articles, if anywhere
   3. The 2016 campaign comment was already in the presidency section, in the social-issues section. Moreover, this section is noting Trump's impact on the judiciary. Sure, we can take out the fact that he took credit (I added it after Photo suggested the NBC article), but as the Times and other sources provided above noted, Dobbs is "one of the signal legacies of President Donald J. Trump".

-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@ Jerome Frank Disciple Apologies for the delay on this - I meant to respond to the ping, but I've been busy/away for a while (and I find it very hard to give this article the proper attention when I'm otherwise occupied)

I won't say I agree with Space on the content of all their edits... but I largely understand them:

• [23]: I don't agree with the outright removal of this source. It's not simply an WP:RSOPINION piece - it's an interview. The opinion comes from a single person (a highly experienced SC reporter), but it is published by the New Yorker under the headline "How Trump Transformed the Supreme Court". Publications like this seem subject to more editorial oversight than a simple opinion piece, so I think the source counts more as an WP:RSEDITORIAL. Still, the sticking point here is that such sources are rarely reliable for statements of fact - typically, you can't use a source like this to assert some provable fact. But, with wording like "it has been noted that", I find the use of this source perfectly acceptable - it's an analysis published by an RS that, in combination with other sources, can be used to verify that, yes, this thing has been noted by reputable and reliable sources.
• [24] Honestly, the source Space removed here was weaker - the primary topic is "the court's shift to the right," not "Trump's impact on the court's shift to the right." The attribution to Trump in this article is pretty weak. The relevant guideline I'm thinking of is WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.
• [25] does look a bit like WP:COPYVIO (though that wasn't explicitly stated). I wish Space (and others) could improve copyvio text rather than removing it... but you can't wish work on others.
• And [26] just looks like a good-faith attempt at using more WP:NPOV wording. I personally don't think it was an improvement, or necessary.

In general, I think you could answer their complaints by adding more and stronger sources, some of which you've identified above. PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 16:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Already done :) -- Jerome Frank Disciple 16:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Huh, and so it is. Things sure move fast on this article - faster than I'm able to keep up with at times. PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 18:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)