Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 137

Archive 130

←

Archive 135

Archive 136

Archive 137

Archive 138

Archive 139

Archive 140

"Author" occupation in infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

New C-SPAN presidential historian survey

45 = 41

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "Big Lie" and lying; a reassessment?

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

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

Something like this?

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

Also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lafayette Square

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article 1

Attorney General William P. Barr personally ordered law enforcement officials on the ground to clear the streets around Lafayette Square just before President Trump spoke Monday, a Justice Department official said ... when Barr went to survey the scene, he was “surprised” to find the perimeter had not been extended and huddled with law enforcement officials on the ground, the Justice Department official said. “He conferred with them to check on the status and basically said: ‘This needs to be done. Get it done,’ ” the Justice Department official said. Police soon moved on the protesters.

Article 2

On Tuesday afternoon, a Justice Department official told The Post (link to Article 1 above) that Barr himself instructed the square to be cleared to effect an expansion of the security perimeter around the White House. 6:10 p.m. Barr appears behind assembled security forces in Lafayette Square in a live broadcast from CNN. While there, CNN captures footage of Barr speaking with several people who were already on the scene. At first, Barr’s group includes only his entourage of men in suits and a man in a riot helmet whose uniform appears to indicate that he’s a uniformed member of the Secret Service. The group stands around for a moment. Soon a man in a white shirt and black vest arrives, apparently a representative of the Park Police. Barr points to the north, in the direction of H Street and, beyond, St. John’s Church. After he does so, a man who arrived with Barr and is observing the conversation checks his watch. Trump is scheduled to speak in five minutes. Again, the official explanation of this conversation is that Barr was informing the security team of the decision made hours earlier to extend the security perimeter a block to the north. Barr again points to the north as a man who joined the group hangs his head as though in resignation. A man who arrived with Barr pats him on the back.

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

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

Barr's response

Still, he said he did not give the officers the orders to proceed — they were already in the process of doing so when he showed up. “They told me they were about to make the announcement and I think they stretched the announcements over 20 minutes. During the time I was there, I would periodically hear announcements,” Barr said. “They had the Park Police mounted unit ready, so it was just a matter of execution. So, I didn’t just say to them, ‘Go.’” Barr said it was a Park Police tactical commander — an official he never spoke to — who gave the order for the law enforcement agencies to move in and clear the protesters.“I’m not involved in giving tactical commands like that,” he said. “I was frustrated and I was also worried that as the crowd grew, it was going to be harder and harder to do. So my attitude was get it done, but I didn’t say, ‘Go do it.’”

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

OIG Report

At approximately 6:10 p.m., news video showed the Attorney General entering Lafayette Park with his security detail and other White House staff members. Protesters in the crowd recognized the Attorney General and began shouting at him. The USPP operations commander heard the change in the crowd, saw the Attorney General, and walked over to him. News video showed the USPP operations commander speaking with the Attorney General and then hanging his head, while another unidentified official patted the USPP operations commander on the back. When we asked the USPP operations commander about this exchange, he stated he told the Attorney General the area was unsafe and asked him and the other officials to move away from the line of officers. The USPP operations commander told us the Attorney General then asked him why the crowd was still on H Street and said he thought they would be gone by that point. The USPP operations commander told us he advised the Attorney General that they were getting into position to move the crowd. He stated he again advised the Attorney General that the Attorney General was not in a safe area and should move further from the crowd. The USPP operations commander said the Attorney General asked him, “Are these people still going to be here when POTUS [President of the United States] comes out?” The USPP operations commander told us he had not known until then that the President would be coming out of the White House and into Lafayette Park. He said he replied to the Attorney General, “Are you freaking kidding me?” and then hung his head and walked away. The Attorney General then left Lafayette Park. The USPP operations commander denied that the Attorney General ordered him to clear Lafayette Park and H Street. Both the USPP incident commander and the USPP operations commander told us the USPP initiated the operational plan before the Attorney General arrived in Lafayette Park and that the Attorney General’s presence in the park had no influence on the USPP’s timeline for the operation. The USPP incident commander explained the USPP wanted to clear the area “as early as possible and [as] safely as we c[ould]” to erect the fence and de-escalate the situation. He added that the Attorney General was “not in his chain of command” and that clearing the park had “nothing to do with [him] or the President wanting to come out.” He stated, “This plan doesn’t get developed in 2 minutes . . . [The Attorney General] might be a very important guy in the Government, he’s just not my boss

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10 contemporary prominent RS

1. Reuters [12]: The report, by the U.S. Interior Department’s inspector general, said U.S. Park Police violently dispersed people from Lafayette Park on June 1, 2020 as part of a plan made earlier in the day for a contractor to install fencing. Does not even mention Barr. 2. Associated Press [13] The report released Wednesday by the Interior Department’s inspector general concludes that the protesters were cleared by U.S. Park Police last June 1 so that a contractor could get started installing new fencing. [...] The report documents Trump’s attorney general, William Barr, encouraging commanders shortly before the push to clear the protesters because of Trump, but being dismissed. 3. CNBC [14] Greenblatt, during an interview later with NBC News, said, “We have no evidence that the attorney general ordered this operation.” “We have evidence from all of the key U.S. Park Police officials, who owned this decision, and the operational plan,” the inspector general said. “They said they made the call and they were credible and all the corroborating evidence that we could find seems to support that finding.” 4. NBC [15] When federal police officers violently cleared protesters from the city's Lafayette Square in June 2020, they did it so a contractor could install fencing — not to let President Donald Trump hold a photo opportunity at a nearby church, an investigation by the Interior Department's inspector general has found. That finding, published Wednesday, is likely to surprise many critics of Trump, who have long asserted that the president or his attorney general ordered the operation to pave the way for an act of political theater. [...] The report found no evidence of that, but did find that Attorney General William Barr urged officials to speed up the clearing process once Trump had decided to walk through the area that evening. [...] Greenblatt also found that Barr's physical presence in the park had no impact on the decision to clear the park. Widely circulated video shows Barr entering Lafayette Square after 6 p.m. with his security detail and other White House staff members. 5. NYT [16] A federal watchdog said on Wednesday that the United States Park Police had been planning to clear protesters from a park near the White House well before they learned that President Donald J. Trump was going to walk through the area last year. 6. WaPo [17] However, a redacted portion of the report seems to indicate that an unnamed government official asked for an earlier clearing of the park. Monahan told investigators he was not given a reason for the request, and that he rejected it and “stated the clearing operation would begin once all law enforcement officers ... were in place.” This does not seem to be a reference to Barr’s visit to the park shortly after 6 p.m. That visit is described elsewhere by a Park Police operations commander who said the attorney general asked when the protesters would be moved, and that Barr did not give an order at that time to clear the park. The commander said the conversation with Barr was the first he’d heard that Trump was coming. 7. NPR [18] Park Police officials said the plan to clear the area was in place before a 2 p.m. meeting that included then-Attorney General William Barr. The Park Police operations commander said "the Attorney General did not mention a potential presidential visit to the park," [during that meeting] according to the report. 8. CNN [19] CNN previously reported that Barr had ordered authorities to clear the crowd of protesters, according to a Justice Department official, minutes ahead of a televised address by Trump from the Rose Garden. Barr later sought to distance himself, saying he had not given the final order to clear the demonstration even as the White House placed the decision on his shoulders amid the fallout. Barr was not interviewed for the report, and the inspector general notes that they found the attorney general's visit to Lafayette Park did not change the Park Police's plans to clear the park. "Both the USPP incident and operations commanders told us that the USPP had initiated the plan to clear Lafayette Park before the Attorney General arrived and that his presence had no influence on the USPP's timeline or decisions," the report says. But the report notes in a footnote that they did not interview Secret Service personnel, "so we cannot assess whether the Attorney General's visit to the park or any planned movement of the President influenced the Secret Service's actions, including its early deployment on to H Street." 9. ABC [20] Greenblatt told ABC News that even though his office did not speak to Barr, the White House, or Secret Service for this review, it would have done so if the evidence indicated there was pressure from any of those sources that had an impact on Park Police decisions. "We would have pursued evidence had it gone elsewhere. But we found that the U.S. Park Police officials on the ground, they owned the decision and the corroborating evidence supported that," he said on ABC News Live. 10. WSJ [21] U.S. Park Police officers who forcibly cleared protesters from Lafayette Square near the White House last year were acting on a prior plan unrelated to the June 1 appearance there by then President Donald Trump, according to an Interior Department inspector general report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 July 2021

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

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 19:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Worst president ever! Restoration of controversial unsourced material

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard § Donald Trump's mental health

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

Legal analysts' view of Trumps lawsuit

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

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

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

Additions on recent rallies

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

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

my intended edit is:

=== Resumption of rallies ===

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

Language to describe judiial appointments

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, SPECIFICO.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COVID-19 conspiracy theorists category

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under "Early life" section: a proposal to delete the 5th sent. (right after fn. 8)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2021

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

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

Abraham accords

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

Opposed - The general feeling appears to be that this article is not the appropriate place for this info, as there is a difference between the person, and the office/position held by the person. - jc37 17:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

---

The peace deals between Israël and several arabic countries aren't mentionned anywhere in the article while the Abraham Accords were signed in the White House and they are mentionned in the introduction of the article dedicated to Trump's foreign policy. Dimitrius99 (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The so-called Abraham Accords were pomp & circumstance and little substance...agreements signed between nations that were not even hostile at the time. The event happened, and is worth a mention in the former guy's foreign policy article, but there is no historical impact of them that is relevant enough to the man's biographical article here. ValarianB (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

"there is no historical impact of them that is relevant enough to the man's biographical article here". Let me quote some reliable sources

CNN : "President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday joined the foreign ministers of the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain at the White House to mark historic normalization agreements between Israel and the two Arab countries.", "Netanyahu described the day as a "pivot of history, a new dawn of peace."

NBC : "WASHINGTON — Israel signed deals to normalize ties with the Gulf states of the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain on Tuesday that were brokered by President Donald Trump in what is described as a diplomatic breakthrough."

USA Today : "WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump heralded a pair of historic agreements formalizing diplomatic relations between Israel and two Gulf Arab nations in a ceremony Tuesday on the White House South Lawn."

MSNBC "Netanyahu says agreement 'can end the Arab-Israeli conflict once and for all'"

Times of Israël : "These phrases may sound pompous, but there is some truth to them. The agreements signed Tuesday in Washington are a genuine breakthrough in Israel’s 72-year struggle to become an accepted member of the region in which it is located. Until today, many Israelis felt their country belonged more to Europe than to the Middle East. Now they may have cause to rethink. "

I completely disagree with you when you say that there isn't any historical impact. First of all, one could argue that these agreements is the beginning of the end for the two states solution since arabic states accepted to collaborate with Israël without asking for specific actions regarding the Israelo-Palestinian conflict. Secondly since multiples reliable sources (if not all) use words like breakthrough, historical agreement, your personnal geopolitical opinion isn't enough for refusing to mention this event. Finally this event is mentionned in the introduction of other language versions of this article, like in the French or the Italian ones.--Dimitrius99 (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

We are not a newspaper, and we do not write like a newspaper. Despite their flowery language, the signing of documents does not in and of itself demonstrate "historical impact". What actual impact has it had? What one could argue like WP:OR. This isn't personal geopolitical opinion. There is much debate out there about how significant these really are. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I was just refuting ValarianB argument : he was saying that these facts shouldn't even be mentioned here because they did not have any historical impact and I proved that many reliable sources say the contrary. Since it's an event that received great attention from the international press, I demand that it is mentioned somewhere in the article. Something like this in the article "On August 13, 2020, President Donald Trump published on Twitter a joint statement between Israel, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States where the first ones announced their decision to normalize their relations. The statement marked the first public normalization of relations between an Arab country and Israel since that of Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994. On the aftermath of this announcement, Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan and Oman also agreed to normalize their relations with Israël. The formal agreements between Israël and the United Arab Emirates and Israel and Bahrain was signed at the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C on 15 September 2020" and add in the introduction after the negociation with North Korea "his administration supervised the peace agreement between Israël annd the United Arab Emirates". English is not my first language so one may change the wording. Dimitrius99 (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

You, whose 27 of 30 lifetime edits have been to this page pumping up Donald J. Trump's endeavors, have not refuted a thing. You found contemporary news accounts of the event that do not speak to their importance or impact on Trump personally. It is suitable to mention in the presidency article. Not here. ValarianB (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The foreign policy section of this article covers things that are called "significant" or "historical" much less often than these are by reliable sources. I did an analysis with links in one of the previous discussions on this issue, but I am not sure exactly where that went. My analysis showed that these agreements are considered the "most significant" foreign policy achievement of his time in office, and it's actually called as much (with the words "most significant" used directly) by a decent number of reliable sources. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

As I said a month ago, now at Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_135#Trump's_Middle_Eastern_brokering, "a face-saving nothingburger", symbolic gesture accomplished nothing of substance. Zaathras (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

You have to be honest : whatever the event, one may find a source saying that it is not important at all. You may be a geopolitical genius and find the right article that expresses the opinion of future historians, but the purpose of Wikipedia is not to find the "true" significance of these events, it is to express the weighted opinions found on all reliable sources.--Dimitrius99 (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Not great timing to start up a thread about peace breaking out in the middle east. This is just why I said the last time this was raised we need to wait and see if this has any real lasting impact rather than just being a photo op.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Each time an event happens in the world we don't wait ten years to see the consequences before mentioning it in Wikipedia. As I said I am not even in favor of saying that Abraham accords are historic, I just consider that due to the numerous reactions they raised one should mention their existence somewhere in the article.--Dimitrius99 (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Nor do we include every international treaty. This is an article about Trump, not his presidency.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, by necessity, a biography of him will cover aspects of his time as a president. I note below 9 sources directly linked that lend credence to the DUE weight in RS argument for including this (at least including this over at least 3 things covered in that section here now). There are more out there - I will start linking more, and more, when I have time. Either the section needs to be gutted with the things less due than this removed, or this needs to be added based on the amount of weight it's given in reliable sources. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

We have a separate article on his presidency. And everything the president does gets coverage, even going golfing.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Sources from past discussions

I've started going through and accumulating RS that lend to the due weight of this in this article (either by saying it's a significant achievement or notable or something similar) - at least more so than the current foreign policy things in this article. Additions to this list would be appreciated. I'm sure there's many more. There's a clear consensus that, regardless of their historical significance, they are the most significant positive achievement by him in office. We must, for due weight, present these in this article if we are going to present other things that are much less due, such as the Saudi arms agreement (less due than this), troop changes (aside from the withdrawal, which is more due than this), NATO comments (didn't receive near as much praise/criticism in RS as this), and Israel related comments aside from the condemnation for the Golan Heights debacle (again, less due than this). I get that people are trying not to add, then let's consider removing some of those less due things. Right now, the section focuses primarily on things that garnered criticism or appear negative (such as "reversing his pre-election position"), and it is due weight for this to be added as well given the amount of significance it is given by RS. Note that in this sort of instance, we are not supposed to attempt to determine significance on our own - we are to treat it how RS treat it - and these sources (among more out there) show clearly that it is considered more significant than some of the things in the article right now by RS. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Praised by Biden
• Lands "victory"
• First unambiguous success
• Diplomatic "achievement"
• "deserves credit"
• Five reasons why they "matter"
• "may prove to be the most significant foreign policy achievement of his first term"
• Pelosi: "an important day"
• "groundbreaking"

I completely agree with you, if this fact is not deemed to be important enough to be mentioned, then one should probably delete three quarters of this article.Dimitrius99 (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

If there is content you feel should be removed, please specify which and why. SPECIFICO talk 08:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

It was essentially a figure of speech since I foremost argue that one should mention Abraham Accords.Dimitrius99 (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I specified three things that are less due than this based on the amount of significance RS attribute to this (and the amount of coverage as a whole, which there's a ton of), and you have yet to respond. Please see my header to this section above the list of sources to see what I would like replaced with a balanced view of these accords - i.e. including them, as well as including the criticism from some sources as "useless" or "for show". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

By all means, you are free to pursue whatever other edits of content you feel is UNDUE. That does not change the fact that this thread is pointless, a waste of time, redundant etc. I see someone has reversed my close. I remain uninvolved in this discussion, except to reaffirm my close and express my disappointment that anyone would feel this thread -- and its diffuse extension -- is a valuable use of editor time. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I would just like to quote the first sentence of the article "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" : "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. " If one considers that Abraham accords are not worth mentioning, they will have to prove that their importance is not supported by any reliable source, while Berchanhimez already gave 9 counterexamples amongst some of the most popular newspapers of the USA.Dimitrius99 (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

None of which apply personally to Trump the man, they apply to Trump the president. Some people here need a reminder that these are separate topics. ValarianB (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks to me like a convulated distinction that could be used to arbitrarily reject basically any event happening during his presidency if one doesn't want it to be mentioned. Could you thus give me a precise criterion that could help us find the line between what should be mentioned here and what shoudn't ? Dimitrius99 (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I undid the closure of this. Discussion was actively ongoing, and closing an actively ongoing discussion is inappropriate. Trump the man has an article here which has a section about "foreign policy" as Trump the president. I said above that these sources alone (let alone the others out there, I can keep adding if you want) prove that this topic is more due for this article than at least 3 other things that are covered in that section right now. Why are the three negative things being covered but not something more due based on coverage in reliable sources? That's a violation of NPOV and the due weight policy. Part of the reason is because people quickly shut down any discussion of this after sources are provided that do not agree with their desired conclusion/outcome. I note that nobody has yet to say why the sources provided do not prove this is more due weight for this article than the other things in the section right now - that's not a proper end to a discussion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

You have provided nothing that is noteworthy or relevant to Trump's biography. Yes, there is a short section regarding foreign policy here, it provides a brief summary of events, which can than be expanded upon at the sub-article. Inexperienced editors frequently get a wrong notion in their heads that "IF NOT IN MAIN ARTICLE THEN IT MUST BE CENSORSHIP!", but, we have child and parent article relationships so the parent does not get bloated and overly-long, it has nothing to do with hiding or burying information. ValarianB (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Summary style says we should summarize the most notable or due aspects of the child article. I went into three topics in my intro to this section that are less due for this article based on the amount of reliable sources that give coverage and give credence to the significance of this. Those three topics should be removed too then, if this one isn't added. We don't just randomly pick and choose what to include in the "brief summary" - we base it on due weight in reliable sources. Again, I'm not saying add this and do nothing - I'm saying replace some of the less due aspects of that section with this. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Specific proposal

I propose adding the following specific text to replace the current part of this section about Saudi Arabia. Per summary style, we should look at the child article and due weight in reliable sources to determine what is important enough to cover in this summary here. The editors at that article have determined that there is more weight given to the Abraham Accords, such that it is mentioned in the lead of that article, while Saudi Arabia isn't even mentioned but in two paragraphs. As a comparison, the section that article has on the Abraham Accords is almost twice as long.

• Text to be added in place: Trump and his staff brokered a normalization of relations agreement between Israel and the UAE, which was then followed by further agreements with Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. While these have been called the most significant foreign policy accomplishment of his administration, many scholars feel he overstated the significance of the agreements and that they are unlikely to produce lasting impact on peace in the region.

Sources for this text would be the following: as well as some of the links I included in the section above. People who think this should not be included are asked to please express how not including this, while including something much less covered in reliable sources (the Saudi Arabia sentences), is compliant with WP:DUE and WP:SS. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I support your proposal, it is balanced, it is sourced and it replaces a paragraph of less importance comparing the two aspects in the child article.--Dimitrius99 (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose "Many scholars feel he overstated the significance of the agreements and that they are unlikely to produce lasting impact on peace in the region", says it all, it is too early to say if this will be HIS lasting legacy or even a last legacy of his presidency. It is just puffery.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's be honest one second : Donald Trump met with Kim Jung Un three times, it was considered historic at that times but it led to all but nothing. Trump criticized Nato several times but it led to all but nothing. Would you support erasing these two events from this article ? One has to be coherent, this discussion has to lead to something because it is clear that if Abraham accords are'nt worth mentioning, these two events aren't either. So what are you proposing to solve this contradiction ?Dimitrius99 (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

No. The reason why the North Korea shtick belongs here is precisely because the former guy made it so intensely personal ....the insult-trading, the massive super-hype leading up to it, and the embarrassing letdown at the end. His NK foreign policy is notable specifically because of the spectacular failure. See Inside the Collapse of Trump’s Korea Policy for a primer. ValarianB (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Right?, this was very personal, Personal meetings, glad-handing. This was Trump using his personality (not the state department) to court a leader, not a nation.Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose For reasons outlined earlier. Notable for the presidency, not the man. ValarianB (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I am still asking for elements allowing us to clearly draw the line between Trump the president and Trump the man. There are several sentences where it is not Trump but his administration which are mentioned in the article, for instance "The Trump administration separated more than 5,400 children of migrant families from their parents at the U.S.–Mexico border while attempting to enter the U.S, a sharp increase in the number of family separations at the border starting from the summer of 2017." Since this policy was announced not by Trump but by Jeff Sessions, one may argue that it concerns Trump the president and not Trump the man. But I would be glad if you give me precise definition of Trump the man. --Dimitrius99 (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

What you're asking for isn't relevant. We as editors make the distinction as we evaluate the sources for a given topic. It's really time for you to move on from this...approx 95% of your edits are specifically Trump-related, and this hyper-focus is not going to make for a long editing career here. ValarianB (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

If you really looked at my profile you would have understand that I'm french and that I have mainly written in my first language on very different subjects for years. It just happened that looking at Trump's english page few days ago and comparing it to the french one, I found the first very biaised and thought that neutrality should be ensured everywhere, so yes for once have written in the english Wikipedia for this specific topic. I was absolutely shocked by the wall of partisanship I found, with people openly expressing their opinion on Trump as if it was an argument and not looking for any concensus. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere with people filibustering any attempt to make articles like this one just a little bit less biaised using fuzzy concepts without even defining them. Dimitrius99 (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• That entire section is about the "presidency, not the man", so under your opinion, the entire section should be removed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Your sarcasm misses the mark, widely. The section provides a brief introduction to the presidency, containing a link to the larger sub-article. ValarianB (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

    ValarianB, per WP:SS, we should be summarizing the sub-article and the most important/significant information in that article. The Abraham Accords are significant enough to be specifically called out in the lead of that article - and I've provided multiple sources to back up that. The other things covered here are not covered in the lead of that article and are less significant - thus per WP:SS we should replace. Why are you using these circular arguments that aren't based on policy to fight this? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I and others have already provided a rebuttal for this argument. Repeating it again would be pointless. ValarianB (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

ValarianB, you have provided no rebuttal to the argument that we are violating summary style by only summarizing negative, unimportant things here. Reliable sources repeatedly call this one of the most (if not the most) significant thing he did as a president. It is so significant it is included in the lead section of the sub-article - which is another argument that per WP:SS we should include it here. So what's your rebuttal to that? Please repeat it for clarity. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

That is incorrect. First, your argument 'was' rebutted. Second, a more limited sub-article will focus on some lesser details that are not significant to the bio. SPECIFICO talk 21:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, if it's a "lesser detail", then why is it the only one of the things in question that's specifically in the lead of that article, as well as being called significant more frequently by reliable sources? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Two wrongs do not make a right if there is content that is objected to suggest its removal in another thread.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

In an article about pests of the Tasmanian Donkey, we will devote considerable space to the scarlet flea. But the scarlet flea is not, itself, a very important insect and is scarcely mentioned when entomologists gather. SPECIFICO talk 18:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, no, but if we had a child article about pests of the Tasmanian Donkey, we would summarize that article, including the scarlet flea, in Tasmanian Donkey per WP:SS - which is a project consensus. Child articles are summarized at their parent articles - we don't pick and choose random information to include on the parent articles. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Nope. At any rate, your view has been rejected here, and it's time to move on. SPECIFICO talk 20:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, it's not my view. It's the project wide consensus of WP:SS that is being ignored. Nobody here has given any reason to ignore WP:SS at all - much less a good reasoning. You've done just what everyone else has done - said "nope" (quite literally) and provided no reason that the guideline does not apply here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I would gladly do that if one gives me precise definitions of Trump the man and Trump the president, so I could propose some modications that are coherent with your vision. This article is already too long so it could be eventually a good thing.Dimitrius99 (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Then start a thread about that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Still waiting to have some more opinions respond - so far only two people have opposed this and neither has actually explained why WP:SS doesn't apply to this situation. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC

Should the change suggested below be made to the Foreign policy section of this article, considering the sources below and the guideline that we should summarize the sub-article at Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Please revise this question so as not to state your interpretation of SS as a "need". What you suggest is manifestly not required, as has already been explained above. SPECIFICO talk 23:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Replaced with "guideline". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Contrary to your final post before this RfC, I explained to you why your interpretation of SS is incorrect. It's pretty surprising to see you beating the dead horse with this RfC. SPECIFICO talk 01:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I never got an explanation from you as to why it’s wrong, and I asked for other editors opinions and none came forth. An RfC will get some uninvolved (and quite frankly less POV) editors involved that can opine based on the policies, guidelines, and sources rather than their personal opinion. If the RfC shows most editors believe the same, then I’ll still disagree but that’s a clear consensus of uninvolved editors. I find it odd that you’re making attacks against me for following the dispute resolution process as listed on WP:DR. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Significance is not transitive. SPECIFICO talk 01:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Specific change and further sources

Replace the paragraph about Saudi Arabia with the following, or add the following to the section: Text to be added: Trump and his staff brokered a normalization of relations agreement between Israel and the UAE, which was then followed by further agreements with Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. While these have been called the most significant foreign policy accomplishment of his administration, many scholars feel he overstated the significance of the agreements and that they are unlikely to produce lasting impact on peace in the region. Sources for this text would be the following: Further sources about significance of this topic. Praised by Biden Lands "victory" First unambiguous success Diplomatic "achievement" "deserves credit" Five reasons why they "matter" "may prove to be the most significant foreign policy achievement of his first term" Pelosi: "an important day" "groundbreaking" "Trump sealed the Israel-Morocco accord" "Former President Trump forged normalisation agreements"

• Support as proposer - we must summarize the "most significant" aspects of the sub article, and this is the only individual aspect of Trump's foreign policy that is significant enough to be in the lead of that article. Furthermore, reliable sources continually call it significant. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Include as a principle. For what Trump is worth, this has been a significant part of his foreign policy. However, I do agree that the section has to be reorganised and compressed, because there seems to be too much text in it. I would also suggest to shorten the sentence, like: Trump and his staff have brokered the Abraham Accords between Israel and UAE, followed by similar agreements with Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. It is considered his administration's most significant foreign policy achievement, although many scholars have voiced concern over their durability. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  I'd be interested to see your sources for "most significant..." and for the "Trump and..." I have not seen anything to suggest he was involved in negotiations. SPECIFICO talk 20:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  Jeez, make it clearer that through your comments in this discussion you haven't actually looked at the sources. To quote the BBC source: Mr Trump, who presented his Middle East peace plan in January aimed at resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict, helped broker both accords. Hell, the Time Magazine literally says he deserves credit for it. The NBC source says represents President Donald Trump's first genuine foreign policy success. These aren't even the only sources out there - but it's pretty clear that reliable sources widely consider it a "success" for Trump himself (not just his administration), and that they consider it one of the (if not the) most significant foreign policy achievements of his time in office. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, you shouldn't have to reach that far if the mainstream view were that Trump was instrumental. And "helped broker..." when he's the most powerful man in the world -- saying he "helped" Jared -- is damning with faint praise. What do Washington Post, NY Times, AP, Politico, The Hill say? Our article on Abraham Accords attributes the accords to Jared Kushner and his right-hand man, Avi Berkowitz. Scant mention of Trump. You'll recall that Jared and Avi were nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by Trump's attorney, Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz did not nominate Trump in connection with the Abraham Accords. SPECIFICO talk 20:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  I hardly think the BBC, NBC News, and Time Magazine are a "reach". But the NYT states he helped negotiate them. It seems odd that aside from the AP (which doesn't seem to have any indication of who was primarily at part), you choose virtually entirely sources with a left-leaning bias. It's in fact you who are reaching now - for any reason not to include this information - and it's becoming disruptive to this discussion. Please let other people comment and we can have a resolution to this. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  Per your own Summary Style premise, our WP Abraham Accords article makes it very clear Trump had minimal involvement except that it happened under his watch and he had photo ops etc. when it was announced. I don't see anyone other than yourself relying on this premise, but now I have assumed your premise and shown that it leads to the opposite of what you advocate. That is the strongest form of refutation. So I hope you will drop the stick. SPECIFICO talk 21:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support (with modifications). 1. As numerous sources show, these treaties are considered a major event in Trump's presidency. Even his opponents said so. They must at least be mentioned in this article. (Case in point: We mention the Israel–Jordan peace treaty in the article about Bill Clinton.) 2. Any deletions (e.g. of the paragraph about Saudi Arabia) should be discussed separately. Let's just add the sentence(s) for now. 3. Strike the "many scholars" subsentence. I checked most of the sources listed above and several related Wikipedia articles, and didn't find any support for that claim. NYT mentions "some analysts said his claims were overblown", which is a much weaker claim. None of the sources and WP articles talk about "lasting impact" or "durability". 4. Since it's closely related, we should mention that the so-called Trump peace plan had failed. Viz. NBC: "Thursday's agreement was the product in part of an earlier diplomatic failure." 5. Replace "Trump and his staff" by "Trump's administration". Kushner was the main driver. 6. "his administration's most significant foreign policy achievement" is a bit too strong. Vox cautiously writes: "...the president’s diplomatic efforts in the Middle East may prove to be the most significant foreign policy achievement of his first term". Most other sources don't use superlatives. Let's say something like "...considered one of his presidency's most significant..." or simply "...considered a significant foreign policy achievement of ...". — Chrisahn (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  Editors of this page have for years, repeatedly, focused it on Trump personally, not his presidency, his businesses, his TV and wrestling ventures -- except as details relate to his personal involvement in such details. Per our Abraham Accords article, Trump was not involved in the negotiations. SPECIFICO talk 00:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

1. "...except as details relate to his personal involvement..." – Not true. A large part (between ~30% and 100%) of many sections is not about his personal involvement, but about events indirectly related to him, e.g. Donald Trump#Foundation, Donald Trump#Support from the far-right, Donald Trump#Protests, Donald Trump#Family separation at border, Donald Trump#Migrant detentions, Donald Trump#Trump wall and government shutdown, Donald Trump#Syria, Donald Trump#Russian election interference, Donald Trump#Special counsel investigation, Donald Trump#Associates. 2. Trump was involved in the negotiations. See e.g. [22], [23], [24], [25]. — Chrisahn (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Chrisahn, any qualms if I add some those sources to the box above? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course not, go ahead! :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Then our article on it is in violation of WP:DUE, because a plethora of reliable sources claim he was directly involved. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Press release fluff describing no substantive role by Trump, confirming our Abraham Accords article. SPECIFICO talk 03:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

If you're seriously calling the in depth coverage in the box above "press release fluff", then it's clear you have no business editing in this topic area as you're just being disruptive at this point. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The Israel-Jordan peace agreement is not a case in point. For starters, Jordan and Israel had actually been at war twice (in 1948 and 1967), and Clinton was actively involved in persuading a reluctant King Hussein. The parties involved in the joint statements had never been at war and had carried on clandestine relations for many years. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

"The parties involved in the joint statements had never been at war" – Wrong. Sudan had been at war with Israel twice (same wars as Jordan). "had carried on clandestine relations for many years" – Correct. Again, same as Jordan, as your source mentions. "Clinton was actively involved" – Your source mentions one meeting between Clinton and Hussein. It also says: "The Americans would not be in the room and not mediate the talks." Trump had repeated phone calls with Netanyahu, MBZ, and certainly lots of talks with Kushner. In conclusion: The Jordan-Israel agreement is very similar to the treaties with UAE, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco, and Trump was about as involved in the talks as Clinton. Definitely a case in point. — Chrisahn (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Sudan and Morocco aren't party to what the Trump administration called the Abraham Accords. Morocco's agreement doesn't mention it, and what kind of an agreement is this undated declaration of something signed by somebody and witnessed by Steven M. Mnuchin? On April 19, Sudan repealed the law on boycotting Israel and endorsed the "establishment of an independent Palestinian state as part of a two-state settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict." Expert opinion, Lucy Kurtzer-Ellenbogen, United States Institute of Peace: "'Were one to have slept through the last nine months and missed that news story (about the accords), the breakthrough agreements would not be apparent in the context of dynamics around the current crisis,' she said." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

1. "Sudan and Morocco aren't party to [the so-called Abraham Accords]" — Correct, but irrelevant. Please read what this RfC is about. 2 "something signed by somebody" – Sounds pretty silly, and I have no idea what you're trying to say. Would you say the Washington Declaration is "something signed by somebody"? 3a. "Sudan repealed the law on boycotting Israel" – Yes, that's a direct result of the normalization agreement. What are you trying to say? EDIT: 3b. Sudan endorsed the "establishment of an independent Palestinian state as part of a two-state settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict." Sounds exactly like the Jordanian position. What's your point? 4. "the breakthrough agreements would not be apparent in the context of dynamics around the current crisis" – Neither is the breakthrough agreement of 1994 apparent in the current crisis. So what? All of these agreements (with Jordan, UAE, Sudan, etc.) are still breakthrough agreements. Thousands of sources use words to that effect. In conclusion: The 2020 agreements are very similar to the one in 1994, and Trump's involvement in 2020 is very similar to Clinton's involvement back then. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

RE 2: No, it's a declaration signed by King Hussein, Prime Minister Rabin, and President Clinton. 3: Israel and Jordan signed a peace treaty, Israel and Sudan didn't, and Israel's position on the two-state settlement wasn't as cemented (literally) as today. 4: The peace agreements between Israel and Egypt/Jordan have held for decades. What did the 2020 peace agreements/declaration of intent accomplish, so far, at any rate? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose has nothing to do with the man personally, which is what this article is. Mention it in the Presidency of... article, where it belongs. Zaathras (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Like Zaathras says, nothing to do with the man personally. Belongs in Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration, not here. --Calton | Talk 06:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Calton: @Zaathras: - any comments on why many reliable sources say this has to do with the person, and not just his administration? Seems like you two are using the same disproven argument SPECIFICO did - and ignoring the sources for your own personal opinions. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

    IMO users have handled your repetitive arguments rather handily, and you have debunked nothing. There is no personal involvement in the so-called Abraham Accords, what you're reading into the sources simply does not exist. As the 2nd half of the proposed text states, "Many scholars feel he overstated the significance of the agreements and that they are unlikely to produce lasting impact on peace in the region", which sums this up rather succinctly. Zaathras (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

    Zaathras, you're free to have that opinion, but on Wikipedia we follow the beliefs/opinions that are expressed in multiple reliable sources - I linked many sources above that ascribe this to the person. This makes your opposition contrary to guidelines and you haven't yet explained why those guidelines do not apply in this case, or why they should be ignored. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  And the way we follow the sources is by consensus of the editors assembled here. You and Chrisahn have gathered virtually no support whatsoever for your views and your edits. You may have noticed folks are declining to repeat their responses every time you repeat empty assertions with misinterpreted or missing evidence. Maybe try something new that we all might be interested in working on? One cannot get peeved every time the world declines ones suggestions. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  Well-aware of what due weight here means, good sir. You cherry-picked a few puff pieces, that is all. Nothing indicates that DJT had a personal hand in any of the negotiations, and his well-known disdain for the details and minutiae of actually governing was well-known. Basically, what you're championing here is his signature on the final document. That the Accords were completed is relatively notable, which is why it is fit to mention in a sub-article. Not this one. Zaathras (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  They aren't cherry-picked - they are multiple reliable sources, both national and international, that claim he had a personal hand in the negotiations. Your personal disagreement with this does not change the fact, and your attempt to discredit reliable sources is borderline disruptive. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  They are indeed cherry-picked, and what's worse, and really kinda sad, is that the sources don't even say what you claim they say. (1) TheHill noted Biden's observation that the Accords were the culmination of the work of multiple administrations, not just Trump's. (2) The Arab Weekly notes the "huge achievement", but again highlight's Biden not crediting Trump personally. (3) Foreignpolicy.com is an OpEd by one of Bush's old neocon pals, thus irrelevant. (4) the BBC's "a diplomatic achievement for President Trump" is not ascribing it to him personally, and goes on to note his abject failure to achieve his claimed ""Deal of the Century". (5) Time, begins with "Trump deserves credit" but concludes it is "not a major enough issue to gain Trump a significant amount of voters that weren’t already planning to vote for him". What we draw from that it that the "win" was largely symbolic and had no impact on his (now-concluded) presidential legacy. You're 0-for-5, it's not even worth continuing to analyze the rest of the sources, tbh. SO, if you wanna play the "borderline disruptive" card, we can begin with your misrepresentation of reliable sources. Zaathras (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  I am misrepresenting nothing - you're using Biden's observations, not what the reliable sources are saying themselves - Biden's observations are less reliable than what the reliable source says themselves. And I don't see how saying it's Trump's achievement is not ascribing it to him personally. We don't care what Biden says on the matter - we care what reliable sources do - and as you note, multiple of the sources ascribe it to Trump even though Biden (for obvious reasons) doesn't want to. There's no misrepresentation - you're the one cherry-picking specific parts of the articles instead of looking at them as a whole - just because they cover what Biden says doesn't mean that they aren't overall giving Trump credit for them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  I'm just going by the sources presented, which is what you are pointedly not doing. There will be no further responses after this. Zaathras (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Calton: The foreign policy section lists Syria, Iran etc. which isn't about Trump personally, but foreign policy on those countries... Can you read my provided sources and reasoning to possibly reconsider your opposition? Bill Williams (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose No source reports more than perfunctory, ceremonial involvement by Trump. I have given more detailed reasons and sources above. Our article on the accords details the roles of the negotiators, documenting Trump's non-involvement. SPECIFICO talk 07:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Wrong. Lots of sources document repeated phone calls between Trump and all other leaders involved. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I can add nothing more to what I have said above. Maybe at some point in the future when scholars assign credit for peace breaking out in the middle eat to this and assign personal responsibilty to Trump, then yes. But it's too early and just a bit too puffy to say what its significance is now, especialy as peace is yet to break out.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

References

• Support This article includes the North Korea summits that accomplished an insignificant amount of change between the two countries. The Abraham Accords resulted in tens of billions of investments between Israel and the UAE,[26] hundreds of millions of dollars paid by Sudan to the US and removing Sudan's state sponsor of terror designation,[27] tens of billions in arms sales to the UAE by the United States,[28], a billion dollars in arms sales to Morocco in addition to recognition of its sovereignty over Western Sahara,[29][30] among other significant results. When compared to numerous things throughout this article, the Abraham Accords are far more significant and worth mentioning. Bill Williams (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. It was a marketing move with photo-op in support of Trump's reelection campaign—ought to be mentioned on Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign. Israel and the other Arab countries officially normalized business relations that had been conducted unofficially for many years. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support Considering the coverage by mainstream reliable sources, it is due. A brief mention in proportion to the corresponding subarticle content conforms to summary style. ~ HAL333 17:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

  NOTNEWS. Minimal lasting coverage or discussion of the accords. SPECIFICO talk 19:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. As Calton and Zaathras say, nothing to do with the man personally. Belongs in Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration, not here. The connection to the person, and the significance of the event both seem too tenuous on the BLP. Pincrete (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
• Note: I've removed the DNAU and replaced it with a pin for this whole section - a request for a close is pending at the proper channel. Whoever closes this discussion should note that the pin is at the top of the entire section so it can be removed when this (expired) RfC is closed. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This is pertinent to his Presidency article, not the top-level biography, for the reasons already stated (primarily that his personal involvement beyond signing the finalized agreements was almost nil). It's probably also due for inclusion on Jared Kushner, as he was the person who actually brokered these agreements. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • User:Symmachus Auxiliarus - multiple reliable sources (linked above) state that his involvement was more than just "signing the finalized agreements". The BBC goes so far as to say he "helped broker both accords". Al Jazeera says he "forged" them. The Reuters article goes into the multiple large decisions Trump made with regards to shifting US foreign policy goals that allowed for the deals to be formed. Vox talks about Trump's involvement in detail as well. This is no less "not about him but about his presidency" than any law he signed - yet many laws are covered in the article, even ones that he had no part in other than the signature at the end. Heck, in the foreign policy section now, there's an entire sentence dedicated to something his administration did. I encourage you to review the sources and the article, and then reconsider your !vote - because by your logic there's heaps of other information that should be removed from this article too. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:47, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I've just read the sources again, in detail. The Vox article doesn't signal his involvement beyond announcing the deal during a publicized phone call with the leaders of Sudan. It mentions him signing off on the prior agreement to remove Sudan from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, which allowed for "official" bilateral talks, but that deal was previously offered in return for them paying restitution to the families who were victims of those terrorist groups. I'm not seeing in this, or any other source, it talk[ing] about "Trump's involvement in detail". They're referring to his administration (specifically) doing this in several places. "Trump" seems to be used as a shorthand for this. Yes, Trump gets the credit, and that seems to be how sources are using the phrasing. And it is significant; I'm not downplaying that (even if these agreements were, as sources state, touted as more than they actually were; they're still public declarations for the world to see). But I think you're overstating a bit what the sources are actually saying in relation to Trump himself. He of course has to sign off on concessions. And his staging of PR events or "photo-ops" (like the phone call) are to be expected. It was widely reported that Kushner and his affiliates were responsible for negotiating these deals. There wasn't much otherwise in the news about Trump and these talks before the finalized agreements were announced; the little we did hear was prior to this always related to Kushner's role in it. For many of the other events, Trump publicly talked about them quite a bit, took credit, and made them part of his biography. If there's a general consensus to remove some of this to in the biography based on the same reasoning here, then I'll support it. There's at least one active RfC on some of that content already. Likewise, I'm not technically opposed to a brief mention of the Accords, but I'm especially opposed to the wording of "Trump and his staff". Kushner brokered the agreements (I suppose that's what's meant by "staff"), not Trump. Hence why I said it's more suitable for Kushner's BLP, and the foreign policy section of Trump's presidency article (as it was an advisor to his administration that brokered the deals). Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Given that the sources all use the word "administration" in places, it seems quite a stretch to say that they meant "Trump" alone to refer to his administration. If they didn't mean to say "Trump", they would've said either someone else's name, or used "the Trump administration". I'm happy for you to propose different wording - and in fact I doubt my wording is anywhere near the best possible. I'll also note that we summarize the foreign policy section of the presidency article here in the foreign policy subsection of the presidency subsection - and as you agree that he got credit, and that it's significant (I agree with your parenthetical statement also), it seems quite clear that this deserves mention in that subsection here more than some of the other things in the subsection currently. That's why I specifically proposed either adding this, or if size is a concern, removing the Saudi Arabia/Yemen paragraph in favor of this. The Saudi Arabia/Yemen information could be considered even less a "Trump-doing" than this was - he signed one (much less significant) arms deal, the military did some things, and then he authorized some troop movements. Just as a note regarding the subsection - it links as a hat note to Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration, which we should be looking to as a child article and summarizing here - and that article mentions the Abraham Accords in the lead, but doesn't mention the Saudi Arabia/Yemen events at all in the lead. I understand completely that it was overblown - hell, Trump exaggerates almost everything he did/wanted to do/tried to do. But it being overblown doesn't mean we ignore what we both agree is significance and involvement - regardless of exactly how involved he was, it certainly beats his involvement in the Saudi Arabia/Yemen events, which are in the article now. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Mention of Fordham University

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

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

Ukraine

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

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

Needs more pronouns

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

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

"Fight like hell" and "Peacefully march"

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

Direct Quote: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Tax Cuts taken out of lead?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 August 2021

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

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