Open main menu

Donald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
In the news Article milestones
June 2, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
February 12, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
September 18, 2016Good article nomineeNot listed
May 25, 2017Good article nomineeNot listed
December 2, 2018Good article nomineeNot listed
July 15, 2019Good article nomineeNot listed
August 31, 2019Featured article candidateNot promoted
In the news News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on June 12, 2018, and November 9, 2018.
Current status: Former good article nominee

Highlighted open discussionsEdit

Current consensusEdit

NOTE: Reverts to consensus as listed here do not count against the 1RR limit, per Remedy instructions and exemptions, above. It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as [[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus]], item [n]. To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

01. Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image. (link 1, link 2, link 3) (temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait, enforced when an official public-domain portrait was released on 31 October 2017)

02. Show birthplace as "Queens, New York City" in the infobox. No state or country. (link 1, link 2)

03. Omit reference to county-level election statistics. (link)

04. Obsolete
Lead phrasing of Trump "gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College" and "receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide", without quoting numbers. (link 1, link 2) (superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

05. Use Donald Trump's net worth evaluation and matching rankings, from the Forbes annual list of billionaires (currently the March 2019 edition, $3.1B/715th/259th), not from monthly or "live" estimates. (link 1) In the lead section, just write: Forbes estimates his net worth to be $3.1 billion. (link 2, link 3)

06. Do not include allegations of sexual misconduct in the lead section. (link 1, link 2)

07. Superseded by #35
Include "Many of his public statements were controversial or false." in the lead. (link 1, link 2, wording shortened per link 3, upheld with link 4) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

08. Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (link)

09. Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (link)

10. Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (link 1, link 2)

11. Superseded by #17
The lead sentence is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States." (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5, link 6) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (link 1, link 2)

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no replies for 7 days, manual archival is allowed for closed discussions after 24 hours. (link)

14. Omit mention of Trump's alleged bathmophobia/fear of slopes. (link)

15. Cancelled
There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense.Special:Diff/764846021 No new changes should be applied without debate. (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (link 5) (cancelled by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)
16. Cancelled
Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (link) (cancelled by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

17. The lead paragraph is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5, link 6, link 7) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per link 7 and this October 2017 RFC.

18. The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "The Wharton School (B.S.inEcon.)", does not mention Fordham University. (link 1, link 2)

19. Obsolete
Following deletion of Trump's official White House portrait for copyright reasons, it was replaced by File:Donald Trump Pentagon 2017.jpg. (link 1 for replacement, link 2, link 3, link 4 for background) (replaced by White House official public-domain portrait according to #1 since 31 October 2017)

20. Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. (link 1, link 2)

21. Superseded by #39
Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him. (link 1, link 2) (superseded by #36 on 18 June 2019, then by #39 since 20 August 2019)

22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (link)

23. The lead includes the following sentence: Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5) Wording updated on 6 July 2018 (link 6) and 23 September 2018 (link 7).

24. Superseded by #30
Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (link) (superseded by #30 since 16 August 2018)

25. Do not add web archives to cited sources which are not dead. (link 1, link 2)

26. Do not include opinions by Michael Hayden and Michael Morell that Trump is a "useful fool […] manipulated by Moscow" or an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation". (link)

27. State that Trump falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton started the Barack Obama birther rumors. (link 1, link 2)

28. Include, in the Wealth section, a sentence on Jonathan Greenberg's allegation that Trump deceived him in order to get on the Forbes 400 list. (link 1, link 2)

29. Include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article. (link)

30. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." (link 1, link 2, link 3)

31. Do not mention Trump's office space donation to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/Push Coalition in 1999. (link)

32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. (link 1, link 2)

33. Do not mention "birtherism" in the lead section. (link)

34. Refer to Ivana Zelníčková as a Czech model, with a link to Czechs (people), not Czechoslovakia (country). (link)

35. Include in the lead: Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. (link)

36. Cancelled
Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him. (link 1) (paragraph removed per followup RfC yielding consensus #39)

37. Resolved: Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (link)

38. Do not state in the lead that Trump is the wealthiest U.S. president ever. (link)

39. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health. (link)

40. Include, when discussing Trump's exercise or the lack thereof: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise. (link)

RfC: books in leadEdit

A recent discussion saw quite a lot of comments on wanting to change this sentence in the lead: He co-authored several books, including The Art of the Deal. Let's discuss to produce a consensus whether it should remain, or be changed. Which sentence should be present in the lead? starship.paint (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

- starship.paint (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Survey for books in leadEdit

  • Option C first choice, Option B second choice - the amount of ghostwriting done on Trump's behalf leaves me uncomfortable with Option A. Reading his tweets, the ghostwriting seems necessary. Between Option B and Option C, as Trump himself is not a publishing company, Option C is preferable. starship.paint (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option D: omit it altogether as UNDUE for a lead, but will accept published, had published, released, contributed to. Donald Trump CLAIMS to have co-authored the books; other informed parties (including the author and publisher) dispute this. A reasonable reader would not take "publish" to mean he stitched the binding himself, but they would think "co-authored" meant he wrote it, which is not supported by the facts. No one thinks "wrote" means "holds the copyright for." GreatCaesarsGhost 12:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option C or Option D (equally weighted). For me, this is a binary thing. Either we use the accurate "has had published" language (which I freely admit is a little awkward), or we don't have anything at all. Trump is not a publisher or an author, so options A or B would be inaccurate. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option B or Option A - One need not be a publishing company to have something published, as per the dictionary definition of the word. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 13:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
    @May His Shadow Fall Upon You: You just wrote: One need not be a publishing company to have something published. Absolutely correct, but you do need to be a publishing company to publish something (leaving aside the whole self publishing thing). That fact that you worded your response the way you did argues that option C is the way to go. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I think that "published" does not exclude the same meaning present with "has had published". But "has had published" sounds terrible. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 14:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
As I said in my comment above, "has had published" sounds a little awkward, but it is at least accurate; however, claiming that Trump published something (or wrote something, frankly) would be wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option B or Option A. B sounds much more natural than C, and it's similar in structure to the opening line of the It Takes a Village article. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option D first choice with Option C as 2nd. Since there are reliable claims that trump did little to nothing in the authorship of the books best to either leave them off or word it more neutral that he has books published about him but without the addition he was somehow the author of them. ContentEditman (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option C (first choice) or Option D (second choice). The most accurate statement appears to be C: "has had published". Since The Art of the Deal is a fairly commonly known book title, it does seem to warrant inclusion in the lead paragraph. Lindenfall (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option C or Option D (equally weighted). Agree with Scjessey’s reasons above. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 21:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option D: omit it altogether as UNDUE for a lead. Since he almost certainly had little to do with their writing, and lies about his role, they do not warrant any mention in the lead, and only short mention in the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • B - The usage "published a book" is fairly common, especially where the instigator of the publication, in this case Trump, is not the author. I don't think "published" necessarily entails a press and a truck. As to D. Yes, we do have body content and a separate article for details about this book, but think it was undeniably a significant factor in Trump's early fame, with a brilliant title, and it preceded a lot of other famous Trump branding, such as his TV career and race-related trolling. SPECIFICO talk 16:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option D first choice with (very reluctant) Option C as 2nd. Gandydancer (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option D most certainly. He is not well known for being an author or book publisher, and many politicians have written or published books. If we must include a mention, Option C would be the best method, but removing the word "has" from "he has had". Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option C or A seem best of the choices - option A (no change) seems sort of OK because we've not got anything new to really push for a change, and option C seems sort of OK because 'had published' covers the ones he is sole author for as well as the co-authored ones. Though at eighteen, it is "numerous" or "many" rather than "several" books. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
How many books is Trump the "sole author" of? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
He may be the only one credited, but no one seriously believes he penned a single word. He isn't capable of such a feat. That's what his biographers tell us. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option D. Too messy: you can't easily mention the books without getting into the weeds of his not having written them. Guy (help!) 20:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option A He's a credited author, and that's what we can verify. Art of the Deal is an important book in terms of what it did to his Q score, so I'm against Option D. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option A (Summoned by bot) Coretheapple (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • First choice A, second choice B – Totally oppose D, because The Art of the Deal has been a key element of Trump's notability, decades before he entered politics, hence DUE for the lead section. — JFG talk 11:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
    Bankruptcies have been a key element of Trump's notability, decades before he entered politics, hence DUE for the lead section. See what I did there? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
    Yeah, JFG's argument doesn't really hold up, as Donald Trump "notability" primarily derived from him being a loud and proud sexual predator and racist, and we're certainly not putting THAT in the lead. Trump was a laughing-stock throughout the 80s, and TAotD was relentless ridiculed contemporaneously as everyone knew Trump inherited most his wealth and had no skill as a deal-maker. It's no more important than the steaks or the board game. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Scjessey: No objection from me to adding a line about Trump's business fortunes and misfortunes to the lead. His casino ventures and related bankruptcies are indeed part of his notability. @GreatCaesarsGhost: Thanks for your opinion. — JFG talk 20:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion for books in leadEdit

Notifying previous commenters:

This RfC does not include options for "released" rather than "published", or for whether or not to include "ghostwritten" (which could be combined with co-authored/published/released/whatever other word), both of which have previously been discussed. I'm on mobile right now, but Starship or someone else, please add them. - Sdkb (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@Sdkb: - I didn't add them because nobody supported them other than you, and we had 10 people in the previous discussion. Too many options makes it harder to achieve a consensus. Furthermore your proposal was the very first one, at the top of the discussion, surely it would have been the most read. starship.paint (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: There was support from multiple parties for "ghostwritten" in last year's discussion, and nothing has substantively changed since then. Regarding "released", I'm honestly somewhat perplexed, since I think I made a reasonably solid case for it, but no one has voiced either support or opposition. If anyone has thoughts about it, they might be able to persuade me to withdraw it, but until then, I object to your dismissing it out of hand by excluding it from the RfC. Sdkb (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@Sdkb: - reading the old discussions, yes, there was support for "ghostwritten", but there was also clear rejections of "ghostwritten". The thing is, while in the above discussion no one has voiced either support or opposition for your proposal, the important part is that almost everyone in the above discussion voiced support for a proposal other than yours. starship.paint (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I regret to say that this RfC seems to be making things worse. We were either at or close to consensus in the previous thread. Now we have a formal RfC that will bring in additional new editors less familiar with the previous discussions or with the decisions made at The Art of the Deal article. Seems like this is excessively formal and likely counterproductive for a relatively unimportant matter. SPECIFICO talk 23:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
    I'm sorry. I tried my best on this. starship.paint (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
    No personal criticism intended. It's a result of the persistent "consensus required" tactic even after that sanction has been deprecated in favor of incremental improvement via revert and modification. Perhaps in the future an alternative to an RfC would simply be to ask an outsider to close the discussion thread. Dunno. The politics articles have lost many good editors since the "special sanctions" fiasco of the past year. SPECIFICO talk 13:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
    Well, nobody invited an outside closer yet... so I did what I thought was right. starship.paint (talk) 05:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
    For the avoidance of doubt, I meant absolutely no criticism of you. From what I've seen you have been one of the most active and clear-minded editors on this article in recent months. I was addressing the the idea that the best is the enemy of the better, and I was suggesting we try to go with the 24-hour BRD model rather than rejecting incremental improvements by reverting back to a flawed imperfect version and tying ourselves in knots on the discussion page. SPECIFICO talk 12:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
    Okay cool, @SPECIFICO:. I take zero offense. Perhaps we should try that. starship.paint (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: You do understand that we're only discussing the lead section here? The ghostwriting thing is already undisturbed in the article text. SPECIFICO talk 20:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC) @Muboshgu: Do you have an independent secondary RS that verifies Trump wrote the book? I have not seen anything of the sort, and apparently neither have the editors at the book's standalone article. SPECIFICO talk 00:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I didn't say he wrote the book. I said he's credited as an author. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, I saw that you endorsed option A, which does say in WP's voice that he was the co-author. I have not seen any independent secondary RS verification of that. Have you? SPECIFICO talk 01:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
The cover of the book. He's listed as an author. And everything written about it confirms he's credited as an author. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Muboshgu, I am trying to be very clear and simple. The article text you endorse, with A states, in WP's voice, that Trump is the co-author of the book. Surely, you do not consider the cover of the book an independent, secondary, Reliable Source for that statement? Your "credited as an author" is not what option A says. Option A says he was the co-author. That's quite a different statement, and it's one that the article text does not support, per the cited references. SPECIFICO talk 12:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, Yes, very much so. It's fine in the body because there is space for the context. In the lede, not so much. We don't need to list every grift there. Guy (help!) 09:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Economy and tradeEdit

There was some consensus for this previously but since it's been a few months, I think I should raise this again at the talk page. Would there be any objection to changing the following paragraph:

The economic expansion that began in June 2009 continued through Trump's first two years in office, although it did not accelerate as Trump had promised during his campaign. Trump had asserted that a policy of tax cuts and deregulation would result in 3% annualized GDP growth, and perhaps much higher, but it reached a high of 2.9% in his second year, while the average growth rates of job creation and inflation-adjusted weekly earnings were considerably lower than during the preceding four years. Economists were nevertheless impressed with the continued strength of the economy nearly ten years into its expansion, as the unemployment rate continued declining, to below 4%, amid only modest inflation. The Dow increased 25.9% during Trump's first two years in office, the second best performance of any president since Gerald Ford, exceeded only by Barack Obama's 48.6% gain. While in office, Trump has repeatedly and falsely characterized the economy during his presidency as the best in American history.

With this?:

Economic growth has continued during Trump's term as president. In attempts to further stimulate growth, his economic policies have largely centred around tax cuts and deregulation, which he has credited for economic growth as high as 2.9% in his second year, although rates of job creation and household earnings have been lower than during the four years preceding his presidency. The unemployment rate has also continued declining, to below 4%, amid relatively low inflation, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average increased 25.9% during Trump's first two years in office.

I encourage further improvements but I think this goes a long way to reducing the editorial style and creating a more encyclopaedic summary. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

This matter has been thoroughly and exhaustively discussed and you have repeatedly failed to establish consensus to change the content. soibangla (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
There hasn't been any exhaustive discussion, unless you're considering the extended discussions you and I had with each other. There was a majority in favour of change last time, but as that was a while ago I have decided to take this to the talk page again. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Per Awilley: "OK, that's enough reverting. You obviously haven't found consensus for this edit, and continuing to revert it back every day or two will likely result in some sort of sanction against you." soibangla (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I really don't wish to argue about any of our previous arguments. They already admitted that they were looking at a different discussion than the then-recent one. Please just keep the discussion here to the subject at hand, even if it's critical, rather than about myself personally. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
The edit you propose now is the same edit Awilley told you less than two months ago you clearly did not have consensus for, after you sought his/her assistance to restore it, after your reversions had been repeatedly rejected and you had been admonished about it. There was a majority in favour of change last time Actually, some editors proposed a variety of changes, but together they did not result in a consensus on the final form for the paragraph, so the long-standing version prevailed. And here we go... again. soibangla (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Even a cursory reading of the proposed alternative reveals multiple POV twists, turns, omissions, and "only modest reduction" in length! I agree with Soibangla. SPECIFICO talk 20:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
SPECIFICO Thanks for the feedback. Could you tell me what you think the POV twists and omissions are? While I do think brevity is an advantage, this is not about reducing the length of the prose. Who are you quoting when you say "only modest reduction"? Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi. OK, some specifics: 1. What makes you say that Trump's policies are "attempts to stimulate growth" when most RS say they are payday for his donors and a boost to the capital markets? Then, 2. "as high as 2.9%? That's as low as "high" has ever gotten -- extensively discussed in the mainstream press and comment. Then 3, we have the "low inflation" which is now increasingly discussed, including by the US central bankers, as a major policy concern, because Trump/McConnell's massive diversion of cash to the wealthy threatens to precipitate the mother of all liquidity traps, with negative interest rates on the horizon. So, I agree with Scjessey, below, that the shortened version is unduly flattering and not NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 03:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
1. Attempting to stimulate growth is not mutually exclusive with wanting to reward donors or capital generally. We could certainly add that these are supply side economics. 2. I'm fine with providing the lowest growth as well as the highest, or an average figure. 2.9% is not a low rate of growth at all. 3. I'm not sure what your disagreement is. All I said was that inflation is low, which you seem to agree with. I am not crediting this or anything to Trump. Is there anything you think I've ommitted? When I get back onto a computer I can hopefully write prose that incorporates your concerns. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't wish to sound disrespectful, but the proposed alternative is laughably hagiographic. It paints an unrealistic picture of reality. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Scjessey, can you tell me what you think of this is hagiographic? There is more criticism of Trump than praise here, but I am open to including further substantive criticism. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
All of it. Your proposed rewrite omits key information and context, and paints "Trump's economy" in a flattering light. I'm not opposed to some sort of change, but this would seem to go in exactly the wrong direction. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Scjessey Please tell me what in particular I omit that you think should remain in some way. If you think there is valid criticism of Trump that I have not included, I would definitely like to know. Overall what I've written says that the positive economic indicators are continuations of the economy rather than caused by him, and I haven't said that they are caused by his actions. I think we might want to add a sentence about inequality, but I wanted to just keep to what was already mentioned in the original paragraph. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Prefer the newer material but think it should not overlook the the huge stock gains under Obama for the sake of comparison.--MONGO (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I think I would rather remove the mention of the Dow Jones entirely, since I don't think it's particularly relevant in evaluating how the government has impacted the economy. We can make him look good by comparing it to the average or we can make him look bad by comparing him to Obama, whose presidency started when the stock exchange was abnormally low. I don't think we should make Trump look like anything but rather let the facts tell the story. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Prefer the newer material, just data without added OR combinations and comparisons that seem not DUE, unnecessary, and about trying to WP:SYNTH find some way to portray good things as bad. Just keep it simple - statistics about Trump here, leaving statistics about Gerald Ford in his article, and numbers about Obama in his article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Old paragraph. I can't remember my old position on this topic, but re-reading both paragraphs, I can't see a single change I would support. The new version omits crucial context established by the old version. Of the new version, this: credited for economic growth as high as 2.9% in his second year is particularly problematic, the wording seems to suggest that 2.9% is a high number. Trump's promises, and assertions, are certainly important for his own biography. starship.paint (talk) 05:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I'm still asking for changes to be made here. I don't see the implication in the wording but I'm happy to change that. We can say "of" instead of "as high as" to remove that possible implication. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
That would be an improvement. However, the rest of your text still removes things I think should be kept. Therefore I cannot support that. starship.paint (talk) 07:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Starship.paint Thank you for the feedback, which things removed do you think should be kept? Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: - everything, really (I did say that above). I would not trim any content from that paragraph, sorry. starship.paint (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I submit that the creation of this topic constitutes WP:TENDENTIOUS ("repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions"), an effort to re-litigate a matter — over and over — that has long been settled. I suggest this topic be closed and the current content retained, until perhaps the end of Trump's third year when it can be updated and revisited. soibangla (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Did we have an Rfc previously on this? I always think it is best when issues keep coming up to create an Rfc to bring in fresh voices.--MONGO (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The last discussion on this resulted in a majority supporting the change, but I didn't get around to instituting it. I have not frustrated proper processes, I am correctly using the proper process here. I haven't yet attempted to insert or delete any content related to this particular discussion either. I am seeking the advice of other editors to create a consensus improvement on the article. You should declare that you wrote the original paragraph entirely, as this is clearly influencing your attempts at disrupting this discussion with petty arguments.
If you disagree with my proposed changes, you can simply indicate that respectfully as other editors have done. Discussion is still clearly ongoing and I thank all the editors who have responded with their constructive feedback. I will certainly incorporate what they are saying into a new paragraph that a consensus can agree with. I care deeply about presenting economic information to a wider public, which is why I am choosing this section to focus on. This is absolutely not a personal reflection on you or your abilities as an editor. Most of all, please keep remarks to the discussion at hand rather than about myself personally. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The last discussion on this resulted in a majority supporting the change No, it did not, as Awilley explicity admonished you, as I clearly showed above, but which you repeat of pattern of ignoring and pivoting to something else, which might explain why you say I really don't wish to argue about any of our previous arguments, so instead you come back again and open a new argument as if all the other ones never happened. As I explained earlier, some editors proposed a variety of changes, but nothing condensed into a consensus, and your verbiage, which you propose again here, was rejected. You should declare that you wrote the original paragraph I did, long ago, but pride of authorship is not the issue here. Despite your previous assertion that it's very poor in explaining economics, I explained to you that it doesn't attempt to do that, but I am defending it because I am educated, trained, skilled and experienced in these topics and my work has been intensely scrutinized by countless executives for many years and I am confident that your language is inferior for a good number of reasons, as I have exhaustively explained to you, but you repeatedly dodge and pivot and run to an admin, then lay low for a while and come back and do it all over again. And you think no one should make any comments about your behavior as an editor? Enough, already. soibangla (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I already addressed this. The person you quoted admitted they were looking at the wrong discussion. I was referring to disclosing the authorship in this particular discussion, not previous ones, but that's irrelevant now. I'm only interested in discussing changes to the article. You're welcome to comment on my talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


The list of attributes at the foot of the main article would be enhanced by the inclusion of self-hatred. Like his father before him, Donald Trump used until recent years to maintain that his grandfather Frederick Trump had been a Swedish immigrant from Karlstad rather than a German draft-dodger from Kallstadt. This misinformation persisted in his autobiography "The Art of the Deal." This behavior has been attributed by commentators to anti-German sentiment in the United States starting from the time of the two world wars.

Something similar might account for the otherwise incongruous combination of striking military postures and denigrating war veterans while himself having avoided compulsory military service. The reams of published comment on DT must include references to these aspects of his behavior. NRPanikker (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

And even if the OP provides sources, we should be mindful of BLP constraints and the recent RfC consensus to not discuss Trump's mental health in this article. — JFG talk 12:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The self-hate bit is Original Research. Ergo, nix. We need not get into BLP or additional OR associating "self hate" with "mental health". SPECIFICO talk 14:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Self-hatred is not a mental illness, rather a part of one's make-up that affects how they think, react and behave in certain circumstances. Regarding BLP, is Trump even a person at present? King James VI said, "Subject and King are clean different things." NRPanikker (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Maybe self-hatred isn't technically a mental illness, but it certainly isn't a psychologically healthy behavior. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Fact-checkers in lead (Current consensus #35)Edit

The lead reads: "Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics."

I suggest removing the mention of fact-checkers and combining the two sentences for brevity (as reverted here). The fact-checkers are mentioned at the linked Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, and the reports are in the body with citations, which seem missing in the lead. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

So, your current version, UpdateNerd is:
Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency, which the media has widely described as unprecedented in American politics
However, seven of the sources for unprecedented are not the media but academics (so academics should be reflected): Carole McGranahan / "historians" / Michael R. Beschloss / "White House scholars and other students of government" and George Edwards / Douglas Brinkley / Heidi Taksdal Skjeseth / Donnel Stern - starship.paint (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@UpdateNerd: No, I can't agree to that. Making it sound as if it is only the media that finds Trump's statements to be false or misleading fits in with Trump's "fake news" narrative. It is important that the lead of the article informs readers, in no uncertain terms, that it is a fact that Trump tells lies on an unprecedented level. That's why it is important to note that a variety of academics and scholars, not just the media, have said this. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Those sentences are the result of extensive discussion earlier this year. That's enough consideration for awhile. ―Mandruss  13:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The content is fine, as is, but if any improvement were to be made, this would help:

  • "Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, the media, and academics, who have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics."BullRangifer (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
    BR's version better reflects the sources and should be the article text as of now. SPECIFICO talk 18:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
    @BullRangifer: - aren't fact-checkers part of the media? Anyway, check the sources in this article, no fact-checker says unprecedented starship.paint (talk) 03:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Here's one way to incorporate some of the above points & combine two sentences:
"During his career, campaign, and presidency, Trump has made many false or misleading statements, which have been debunked by fact-checkers and widely described by the media as unprecedented in American politics." UpdateNerd (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
unprecendented has to stay. starship.paint (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
(ec) That drops the important point, arguably the most important point, that the phenomenon is widely described as unprecedented. This is clearly an important part of the existing consensus if you read that discussion.
This is why we avoid rehashing things that have already been thoroughly "hashed" not too long ago. We have been over all of this at length, and what we have is good enough that our time is better spent on things that need our attention more. ―Mandruss  04:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I've re-added that above. I thought there was some dispute over whether our sources actually say "unprecedented", but the ones linked above clearly do. To be clear, my goal isn't to change the information but to combine two sentences into one in a long lead of a long article. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Unnecessary. Arguably detrimental, as two shorter sentences are easier to read and comprehend than one long one. ―Mandruss  04:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
In that case, I'd suggest we use a semi-colon instead of a period to make it more obvious that the two statements are part of one idea. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Don't the words "The statements" beginning the second sentence make that obvious enough? For me at least, the difference between a comma and a semicolon is a single pixel, and I'm afraid my vision isn't good enough to see one pixel clearly. So I would have to analyze context to determine that that comma is probably a semicolon. Again, we're rehashing something that – at best – doesn't really need rehashing. ―Mandruss  04:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Every other sentence in the paragraph is a separate idea. So randomly using two sentences near the end of the paragraph to explain a single idea is somewhat confusing upon the first read. Just a stylistic thing, but a semicolon could help. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Well I just disagree. As I just said, I believe that a semicolon could do more harm than good. ―Mandruss  04:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Or as Kurt Vonnegut said, "Do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college." UpdateNerd (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I would disagree with Vonnegut. I think they serve a useful grammatical purpose in relatively rare situations. Sadly, the visual ambiguity thing makes me want to avoid their use whenever there is a reasonably acceptable alternative. I feel this is such a case. ―Mandruss  04:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── It's fine as it is. Leave it alone. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Height listed is incorrectEdit

Under "Health and lifestyle" wiki states although at 6 ft 3 in (1.91 m) and 243 lb this is incorrect, and must be edited to 6'2" 1.8796 meters — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Please provide a source for this data. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
To my surprise, [1] [2] [3]. It looks as if the height is keeping pace with the weight in recent years. I would say that the 6'3", like the "co-authored books" thing, is an extraordinary claim from non-independent sources and should be treated accordingly. It's been about 30 months since we discussed these "medical reports" and I suspect that some of the editors who previously took them at face value may have revised their opinions. So it's at least worth hearing what others thing should be done about IP's request. SPECIFICO talk 21:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
The taller height may be his from an earlier age. People do shrink as they age. Has he made any recent claims?--MONGO (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
So to stay ahead of the curve, maybe 6'1" for shrinkage? He was at Obama's 6'2" 3 years ago. SPECIFICO talk 22:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I just read that Obama was 6'1". Unless we get some official updated height from a medical exam tabloid speculations should be avoided. Apparently based on his advertised weight, the difference of one inch extra in height (6'3" instead of 6'2") makes him overweight instead of obese.--MONGO (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
So ignoring any shrinkage in office that would put Trump's true height at 6'1", not adjusted for elevator shoes or hair mass. SPECIFICO talk 23:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Are we really discussing this?   DuhJFG talk 09:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── An argument can be made about removing this completely. Trump obviously lies about his height and weight out of vanity, and he has instructed people to lie on his behalf. For any other president this would be scandalous, but there are at least 10 new things more scandalous than this every week. Trump clearly wants to downplay the "obese" moniker, and speaking as someone who has been obese for 32 years I can totally understand, but given the weight (pun intended) of all the other shocking Trump-related things, I no longer regard this as notable. You could even call it fat shaming. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I removed height and weight. There is no independent RS sourcing for this and it's trivia. The physician's conclusion that he's "clinically obese" is sufficient. SPECIFICO talk 13:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay, that seems reasonable given that the source specifically mentions his obesity. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Aside: I am a gnat's cock over 6ft and I am a lot taller than Arnold Schwarzenegger. I almost didn't recognise him in the lift in the hotel because he was like 5'9" or so, I thought it was a lookalike, as Arnie is always stated to be over 6ft. Guy (help!) 15:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    How refreshing to learn that a Wikipedian once shared a lift with a barbarian! — JFG talk 16:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, he's not been back. Guy (help!) 16:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Batteries question for those unheard fromEdit

JFG and Mandruss suggested I do this as another thread limited to the bit asking about the batteries phrase recently added at the end of the Donald Trump#Health and lifestyle section, so:

For the three-quarters who did not ask for this “batteries” phrase, are you opposed to that ?

Answer (or other thought) below please. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Specifically pinging the ones who did not previously speak to it:

Replies to pingsEdit


User:SPECIFICO Well, this is looking for what folks think about the “battery” closing to the added sentences, from those who had not voiced anything about it in the last discussion. You voiced in favor so weren’t pinged, but circa three quarters of the editors were inputting about other things and said nothing about “batteries” either way. I wanted to find out what (if anything) that bulk of folks thought, and in a roundabout way JFG/Mandruss directed me to do a new separate thread. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I personally don't care, the sentence is fine either way to me. I !voted before the other options were added, and I didn't see the need to !vote again after options C and D were added. @Markbassett: I think we are all tired of this discussion, can we please move on? Thanks. Mgasparin (talk) 05:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Look, I'm happy to discuss whether the "batteries" quote is worth including, but I can't support your process of selective pinging, still referring to the previous RfC. Just ask a straight question for/against that quote, and don't ping anyone. — JFG talk 06:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    I agree. He can't unping, but he could at least close his own thread as withdrawn. Or somebody else could close it as another process misstep, and I would support that. ―Mandruss  06:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    Umm, what? I note that directed pings were what was used before in a generic ask which got limited response... this seems a bit similar. Markbassett (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I think Option A: "Trump does not exercise, viewing it as a waste of energy" represents the best choice. It says the most with the fewest words. References to golf are superfluous. The subject of "exercise" is significant enough to stand on its own. We are telling the reader Trump's view on exercise. (I had voted differently in the past. I am changing my position on this.) Bus stop (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) This has been discussed so many times in (seemingly) the last 5 minutes that I no longer care. I continue to think "Trump does not exercise, viewing it as a waste of energy." is the best of all the choices, and I am unlikely to change my mind unless/until something new from reliable sources becomes available. And there's no need to ping me to announce a new thread, because I read them all. Reserve pings for drawing attention to responses in older discussions, or when threading is confusing, or when an editor has apparently been inactive in a topic area for a bit longer than normal. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Please start over, link to the article text and previous discussions you reference and state the question so that it can be understood by one and all. Personally, I have two immediate reactions: 1. This article has too many undue synthy tidbits that suggest Trump is corrupt, a racist, a narcissist, a privileged nitwit etc. etc. -- these are each on their face undue and unencyclopedic. 2. There are increasing numbers of RS (mostly not day-to-day media) references that address the same issues and events in Trump's life from a broader perspective and provide reasoned, evidence-based, and DUE assessments of the same issues. I don't recall supporting the "batteries" bit but if I did, I retract pending a complete statement of the issue. 3. The editing environment here seems not to be consensus-based but, even worse than ever, enabling vetos of article improvements by even a single editor. If this is how the page is to work, then the 24-hour BRD experiment should be abandoned. I think it should first have been given a fair try. How can we attract new editors to these articles amid legalistic quibbling over nonsense? SPECIFICO talk 13:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: When has an article improvement been vetoed by a single editor? Diffs please. ―Mandruss  21:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
User:SPECIFICO acknowledge your retracting support for “batteries”. You had supported the paragraph including it at 21:07, 22 August, though that post seemed somewhat contradictory as it also strongly opposed part of the paragraph. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I still think Option A: "Trump does not exercise, viewing it as a waste of energy" is the best choice. As I said before it gets right to it and it's what he's said. The bit about the body having limited energy sounds a bit OR in that it sounds misleading to me. What I think he probably meant was, only so much time and energy in a 24 hour period, and he wants to use it for something he believes is more productive. Bodding (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The more I think about it, the more it seems to fit better in an article about human longevity and the benefits of healthy exercise. We don't have to add everything Trump says, especially if it's criticism considering his age and seemingly boundless energy. How does inclusion serve our readers? I'm of the mind that it comes across more as pointless criticism, making it quite unencyclopedic. Also keep in mind that when his term is over, there will probably be a lot of whittling down as the political motivations wane and more historians and academics start publishing facts and actual results which will replace all the speculation. RECENTISM and allegations of Russian collusion come to mind. Atsme Talk 📧 15:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Presidency section is redundant with Presidency article. Saves 100Kb space to merge redundant material.Edit

The Trump biography is presently templated for length issues. When his Presidency article was templated last January nine months ago, I was able to save 100KB in that article by merging the Foreign Policy section there with the Trump Foreign Policy article on this link [4]. This worked last January on the Presidency article, and now a similar redundancy can save about 100Kb in the Trump biography article here since the "Presidency section" here is redundant with the Presidency article for Trump. It is possible to save the entire section space here by linking to the Presidency article and then merging a significantly shortened version of that section on Presidency here into the "Political career" section directly above it here as a subsection. That saves nearly 100Kb by not duplicating redundant material in this Trump Biography article which is already covered in detail in the Trump Presidency article. CodexJustin (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

A similar proposal failed to reach consensus in July, see Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 101#Transclude Presidency?. ―Mandruss  14:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for this comment and link. I have placed this as a 1RR edit to show that the space saving is over 100Kb. CodexJustin (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
There's no way we can remove a bunch of information about his presidency from this article. His presidency is the most important thing there is to report about him. If we want to trim material that is redundant with other articles, trim the business or family sections. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
MelanieN Yes, that's a good point. There's a lot there that could be trimmed while still keeping in mind that this article is his biography. Bodding (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • About the length maintenance tag I think it should be removed from the top of the article. Having a standard tag at the top inviting editors to remove content from this article where almost every large removal of content to reduce size will be challenged and discussed endlessly on the talk page seems like a bad idea to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
It's a good idea to invite editors to think of ways that this article's size can be reduced. After all, only extended confirmed editors can make any changes to the article. I encourage efforts by CodexJustin and others to propose drastic reductions in size like this, by providing a summarised version of large sections which have their own articles. In the case of Trump's presidency, there are many articles about it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree that some sections of this article can be reduced dramatically if spinoff articles cover the content better. But I oppose any notion of eliminating the Presidency section, which would be unprecedented in the biography of any U.S. president. I think that the Business career and Media career sections are much better candidates for this type of treatment. Take a look at George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the two other presidential biographies of the Wikipedia era. Take a look at other biographies of presidents who were already very famous at the time of their election, such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant and Dwight D. Eisenhower. All these articles have both robust Presidency sections and even more detailed "Presidency of . . ." spinoff articles. We should maintain that model for the Trump article, since his presidency is by far the most historically important part of his biography. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Trim Presidency, do not eliminate business and media. More of his life, fame, and personal events happened then and it’s not less the problem. The BLP article needs to everywhere try to be concise and to filter harder to be BLP and to things with lasting impact. The Eisenhower article manages *eight* years of Presidency and his prior considerably more historic life without the help of ~1000 side articles, this just needs the hard effort of pruning story-du-jour and trivia. Keep the maintenance tag up until it’s no longer an oversized article, if ever. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
    I agree with Markbassett, and I'd be particularly eager to see her proposals for some cuts that substitute long-term perspective for lists of media dust-ups. SPECIFICO talk 18:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Include accounts of Donald Trump not being a racistEdit

There are many people who know Donald Trump (including to a personal level, and including many people of colour) who say that Donald Trump is not a racist. I think these accounts should be mentioned in the 6.4 Racial views section of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbruen (talkcontribs) 22:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Donald Trump has stated several times that he is “the least racist person”. He has improved the lives of minorities more than any modern presidency with his economic policies (lowest unemployment rates in black and other minority groups), he pardoned a black boxer, Jack Johnson — who was convicted for travelling with a white girlfriend across state lines and he has been a friend of Tiger woods and played golf with him and even given him a presidential award. He certainly has been insensitive and politically incorrect on racial matters at times, but there is evidence that he is not a racist too. This article is not NPOV on this matter as these evidences are not sourced and summarised in the article. I long wanted to say something but figured anything positive or neutral about Trump tends to get battled out of the article and saw it as a waste of time.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
There is no compelling reason to credit Trump's economic policies for low unemployment rates He didn't flip a magic switch to make it happen. Just sayin'. soibangla (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Donald Trump" page.