Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 127

Archive 120

←

Archive 125

Archive 126

Archive 127

Archive 128

Archive 129

Archive 130

"Succeeded by" field

The "succeeded by" field should be removed from Trump's infobox, as he is still the U.S. President and has not yet been succeeded by anyone. DanJWilde (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Infoboxes almost always include prospective successors when they are known. If you rewind to 2016 I'm almost certain you'll find the same thing happened on Obama's article when the result was called by all major media outlets. - 2A01:4B00:86C4:B800:3D89:6477:D59:D57F (talk) 12:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Still does not make it right. I would rather wait till it is official.Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Barack Obama's infobox did not name Donald Trump as his successor until Trump was inaugurated. I agree with Slatersteven that the result is not yet official. I may be wrong but I feel as if I have read somewhere on here that successors should not be named in infoboxes until they formally succeed (although I accept that I may be wrong - this may just be for dates). I believe edits made to Shinzo Abe's infobox when Yoshihide Suga was named as his successor were reverted for this reason. DanJWilde (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I feel inclined to agree with the issue raised. Despite recent events, it's also quite clear in the infobox that Trump assumed office in 2017, not 2016 when he won the last election. It's not appropriate for the successor to already be noted until they are sworn in. -- Tytrox (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Barack Obama the day after the 2016 election. --Tataral (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Should act "Designate". As Trump still not concede the election.Marxistfounder (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not Trump ever concedes is irrelevant. But, I agree that he is still president and there has not yet been a succession. O3000 (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

He does not have to concede, he just has to be officially told "your fired".Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Duplicates #"President Elect". I still support removal of "Succeeded by" for now, per my comments there. The opposing arguments have merit but are not enough to change my stubborn mind. (I was advised to stand down by an editor who has earned my respect, and I was prepared to do so until I saw this thread). Likely but not certainly, the field will be in the infobox within a month or two regardless, so we're probably only debating what should happen before then. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

A grammar argument: The infobox item "succeeded by" is past tense, suggesting that the succession has already happened. Since it has not yet happened, IMO we should not put a name there until the president-elect has actually become the president. As for the current situation, the article is still locked, but we may be approaching consensus to remove Biden's name from the "succeeded by" box. That will be up to whatever uninvolved administrator evaluates this discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

This is not necessarily accurate from a grammar point of view. In English past, tense can also designate a-temporal or defined situations. For example in the sentence 'cold air fronts are generally succeded by warm air fronts' etc... So past in this use, as in the 'succeded by' does not necessarily mean past in the sense of time.Eccekevin (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Is it just me, or do you keep changing your position as to this field and the use of caution more generally? The infobox item "succeeded by" is past tense Beat you by 19 hours.[1] ―Mandruss ☎ 17:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you here. DanJWilde (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Has consensus not already been reached though? I am fairly new to Wikipedia's processes. DanJWilde (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Consensus is a fairly fuzzy concept, with opinions often varying. My opinion is that we are short of a consensus to remove, considering the strong opposition at #"President Elect". If the field had not been already added, we would be short of a consensus to add it, but that's how it goes sometimes. Actually I'm not clear how it got added without consensus, given #Page protection, but I'll resist the urge to wikilawyer this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Regardless of who anyone in the country thinks won the election, Trump is objectively still the president until at least January 20 and is able to direct and carry out any laws until then. We can put “succeeded by” at the time when he is actually succeeded, when (presumably) Biden is sworn in Anon0098 (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Biden's own article names him as president-elect but this article gives the impression the election is still in play. I think WP:BOLD action is in order. JJARichardson (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

No, it should not be removed. It is standard practice in Wikipedia, and has been for as long as infoboxes have been around, to include the elected successor as "succeeded by" with the appropriate qualification (e.g. "elect"). This is what we did for Trump and Obama the day after the 2016 election too. There is no reason to invent a new rule only applied to Biden. In the context of the infobox, "succeeded by" can mean both "[has been] succeeded by" or "[will be, is scheduled to be etc.] succeeeded by". The inclusion of the president-elect is useful information that readers are interested in. --Tataral (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Now removed pending consensus to include. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox officeholder: "The infobox for an incumbent officeholder should not mention an elected or designated successor, or the end date of the term, until the transition actually takes place." ―Mandruss ☎ 19:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Overall, this article gives equal weight to the competing narratives that Biden won the election and the election has not been settled. Regardless of what the infobox template says, listing the successor when known happens virtually every time. Omitting it now is a biased choice that does not reflect reliable sources. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

listing the successor when known happens virtually every time - Here are two alternative rebuttals, take your pick. (It's unfortunate that process is still so unclear after 19 years, but I don't run the place (also unfortunate).)

• That argues that practice supersedes guidance, and that the guidance simply needs updating to reflect practice. That might work if the precedent discussions considered the guidance and rejected it, but that has not been shown. More likely, editors were simply not aware of the guidance, which is easily missed at the bottom of the doc's lead rather than being attached to the |successor= parameter description.
• The template guidance represents a community consensus that cannot be overridden by local consensus, per WP:CONLEVEL. The precedents are simply wrong and carry no weight. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, this article deviates significantly from reliable sources in its coverage of the election result (i.e. the fact that Biden won the election) and the fact that Biden is the president-elect; instead it treats the election result as unclear at best by giving equal weight (WP:FALSEBALANCE) to fringe "alternative facts", unlike all the world's reliable sources. Of course, this is nothing new, as I can attest to after four years of arguing on and off, mostly in vain, for a more mainstream coverage of Trump based on how he is usually covered by reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no reason to end discussion, but there is also no reason not to start a Survey section, and I will do so below. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Can we apply consensus to Mike Pence's page? I started the same argument over there regarding VP-elect Kamala Harris. -- Tytrox (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tytrox: First, there is no resolution here yet. If there is a consensus here, it won't be binding there (I assume that's what you meant), although it could be presented as part of an argument there and editors there could agree or disagree. For better or worse, there is no policy or guideline that the articles must be consistent with each other. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: That's fair. Just thought I'd table it anyway, just due to virtually same circumstances. -- Tytrox (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Hi, GW! Sorry to bother you, but I'm hoping to get an interim ruling on this question of whether to put Biden in the infobox as successor, or not. We do not seem to have a consensus one way or the other by head count (I get five to include, seven to omit); the arguments on the omit side cite wikipedia guidelines, and on the include side, call it a common-sense argument; both are valid. But I wondered if you can give us a guideline on what the status of the article should be while the question is debated? I ask because people are continuing to add it and remove it. If we had an interim guideline we could put an invisible comment in the field. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

There's definitely no consensus at the moment. Whether that means we should omit the field pending consensus to add, or include it pending consensus to remove, I'm not sure, but I do agree we should pick one and add it to a hidden comment to try to end the warring. Perhaps other uninvolved admins watching this page have thoughts? GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

There is already a hidden comment, as of this edit. I'll be very interested to see the rationale for including hotly disputed content that not only lacks consensus but would go against the slight trend now extant. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

No objection to that hidden comment—per User:Awilley's comment just now below it seems he is going with "omit pending consensus to add", which makes sense to me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Survey: "Succeeded by" field

Omit or include.

• Omit per {{Infobox officeholder}} guidance:

  The infobox for an incumbent officeholder should not mention an elected or designated successor, or the end date of the term, until the transition actually takes place.

  Arguments that we should disregard that long-standing guidance are uncompelling. Editors arguing that the guidance needs updating to reflect common practice are welcome to try that and see if the community accepts it. If they are successful, I will support inclusion here. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Include the successor is consistently listed across the project. There is a clear benefit to including it and a clear detriment to omitting it. We are not obligated to follow any rule that prevents us from improving the encyclopedia. It is inherently suspicious that we should seek to deviate from longstanding practice at this moment where such a choice endorses (intentionally or not) a bad faith argument about Biden's status as the successor . GreatCaesarsGhost 21:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Omit per Mandruss and the fact that if Biden were to (heaven forbid) pass away, resign, refuse to take office for family/health reasons, faithless electors make it so neither Trump or Biden have 270... there's tons of situations in which Biden will not succeed Trump. The successor field should not be filled out until the person has actually succeeded. It's not called "likely to succeed", it's called "successor", and to this day, Biden has not yet succeeded Trump. Discussion as to whether the field should be renamed or another field added of "expected successor" or similar may very well happen, but until that time, it is inaccurate to call Biden the successor of Trump until the oath of office is taken and Biden is officially president. What is/was done on other articles does not mean we must make the same mistakes again. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm going to put some arguments here for/against WP:OTHERSTUFF since people seem to be arguing "but we've always done it when the election's called" - Obama's article didn't have him listed as the successor in late December because he hadn't been inaugurated yet, nor did George W Bush. It seems there's actually an ultimate precedent for not putting succeeded by until the inauguration. I'm unwilling to go back past 2008 because the prior would've been.. well, 2000, which is... not available. Long story short, for those arguing "precedent", I encourage you to actually go look because your "precedents" are actually not what you think they are. Any vote that argues per "precedent" or similar should be interpreted to omit - because precedent is to omit. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
    • It's been brought up a few times that the precedent seems to differ between presidents' articles and other offices in the US. I agree with some others that a wider (centralized possibly) RFC would be useful, but until that time, given that the template documentation has not been questioned in a long time and seems to be followed when it's brought up from what I can see, I feel we should honor that. I just figured I'd make clear that my view is the same even after it's been brought up that there is discrepancy between the history of presidents' articles and that of other offices, and add my support for if someone wants to make a wider RFC. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Include because it needs to be added. And the bottom paragraph "In the 2020 U.S. presidential election, major news organizations have projected that Trump lost his bid for re-election." needs to be changed immediately, because it's completely misrepresenting what is already a decided result. The polls are already in.. I don't see why there are so many mods on here trying to delegitimize the result of the election on this article. Quite frankly I think more than one person on here should have their editing privileges removed, because they're clearly coordinating to delegitimize the electoral system. Saying that there are multiple ways in which Biden couldn't succeed Trump is NOT an argument to sow doubt that Biden won the election. That much has been decided based off the number of votes Biden got in Pen, AZ and Nevada. I don't see why it's so hard for people to comprehend basic math, but Biden IS the President Elect. --50.69.20.91 (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  Word to the wise: Just state your argument and save the accusations and aspersions. A pattern of such will get you topic-banned or blocked. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  I'll note also that winning an election does not mean someone has succeeded another as an officeholder. I don't personally think the debate over "who won" is even relevant here. He has not succeeded Trump until he assumes office - period. The result also hasn't been decided yet - that happens when the electors officially vote. As happened in 2016, I think there's going to be at least a few faithless electors who vote for random people like Ted Cruz or something. Regardless, someone does not succeed another until they assume the position - not simply when they're offered the position, or when they accept the position, but when they assume the position. Again, a discussion over changing the field/display to reference "eventual successor" or something is an argument to be had in a different place. Trump is still the president for another ~2 months, after which time (assuming nothing changes) Biden will be added as the successor and an end date to Trump's term as president be added. I think you've conflated "the election" with "the office" here - nobody here in this section so far has disputed or "delegitimized" the outcome of the election - and that's not what this section is even about. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Omit per @Mandruss:'s argument. The officeholder infobox template is clear. -- Tytrox (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Omit As posted by User:Mandruss above, the infobox guidance for officeholders specifically forbids mentioning a successor, or an end date of their term. until the transition has actually happened. IMO this settles the question and there is nothing more to say. On the suggestion to include it in the infobox, we don't. We leave it out. If people want to discuss adding a sentence about the expected succession to the text, maybe that should become the subject of a separate discussion, but the infobox question appears to be settled per Wikipedia guidelines. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Include. It's undisputed that he is the president-elect, as far as reliable sources are concerned; even George W. Bush has congratulated him as president-elect. We included Trump in Obama's article the day after the 2016 election and it's standard practice to include the successor-elect. Also, this article (Donald Trump) should be consistent with the information in other articles including the article on the president-elect, what we announced on the main page and the consensus among RS, and not push a fringe conspiracy theory that Biden didn't win the election. --Tataral (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • User:Tataral: As my information above shows, this was in dispute and the result was that it was not included in the infobox until the inauguration itself on that article. Whether it was added does not matter - whether it had consensus to be added to that article does. There are lots of things in any president's article that were added at some point or another - including BLP violations and death threats - and the use of the fact that they were added at one point while ignoring that they were later removed with consensus for not including them would be a very slippery slope. I agree with some others on this page that a larger centralized RFC - not limited to the USA - would be useful to clarify how Wikipedia should handle this - but until that time, the precedent is to not include until the succession happens. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Omit Trump has not been succeeded by Biden, he will be succeeded by him. The wording suggests that Trump is no longer president. In the last edit for Barack Obama's article before his term expired, there was no entry for "Succeeded by."[2] There is a discussion about this at Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 81#Should Trump be listed in the Infobox as Obama's successor? The same reasoning applies here. TFD (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Include. For God's sake this is what we're discussing now? Instead of improving the article, we chose to lock it away from further improvements and arguing over negligible things like this? Just change the word "succeeded by" with "will be succeeded by" or "successor (presumptive)". I know this is democracy, some of you just want your voices heard (or cannot bear your candidate's loss, so you fell into bias-land), but the topic is just plain stupid. This is simple matter, please don't make it complicated. Per WP:IAR, I agree with GreatCaesarsGhost. We are not obligated to follow any rule that prevents us from improving the encyclopedia.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 08:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  This is simple matter, please don't make it complicated. I couldn't agree more. Follow guidelines unless you can make a case for a single-instance exception to them. If you disagree with a guideline or feel it no longer reflects common practice, seek to change it. There is nothing "complicated" about that, and it's the approach that best promotes site-wide consistency (which, I would argue, is a Good Thing for the encyclopedia). IAR is meant to allow exceptions to the PAGs, not to allow blanket disregard for one because we disagree with it. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Omit per Mandruss. Some states are still counting, there are recount challenges in several states, there are legal challenges all over the place (absurd and unlikely to succeed but still happening), the Electoral College doesn't vote for a few weeks and Republicans are actively campaigning for electors to ignore the popular vote, there's a sound theory that Trump will resign before transition in which case he'll be succeeded by Pence (as I understand it); there's a lot of dust to settle yet and it's far too soon for Wikipedia to say this is a sure thing. I'd personally be more confident adding succession after the Electoral College votes, as the situation is likely to be substantially more stable at that point. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Suggestion If the "Omit" votes prevail here you may want to put some hidden text in the infobox code asking people not to add Joe Biden yet and explaining why. Judging by the way things have gone in the past, I suspect the longer you try to enforce this the more difficult it will become. ~Awilley (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  Any consensus here will probably warrant a #Current consensus item, and common practice at this article is to do as you say, including a pointer to the list item. Once done, enforcement is easy and 1RR-exempt. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Omit - Per Mandruss. This seems fairly cut and dry. PackMecEng (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Include - We do this for all political offices, when a successor has been elected. WHY do it differently here & now? PS: I must confess, I came close to using profanity, when I noticed some of you trying to exclude the field. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  Because as Mandruss points out, per {{Infobox officeholder}} The infobox for an incumbent officeholder should not mention an elected or designated successor, or the end date of the term, until the transition actually takes place. PackMecEng (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Look around you. There's hundreds of such articles which do include the designated successor. Just please, stop trying to make one article different from the rest. It's damn annoying. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Some examples might help but otherwise that is just WP:OTHERSTUFF. PackMecEng (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

We didn't do it when Bush or Obama were still in office.[3][4] Trump's designated successor incidentally is Vice President Mike Pence. Should Trump leave office before his term expires, Pence would become president. TFD (talk) 08:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Include - Wikipedia should not give in to attacks, we should continue to follow WP:NOTTRUTH standards like we always do. Consistency removes bias from Wikipedia. In a time like this, Wikipedia is continuously being searched for inconsistencies. Gsquaredxc (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Consistency would be not including the end of term nor successor until Trump leaves office upon Biden's inauguration on January 20, 2021. This is how it has been done for Trump (when he succeeded Obama) and Obama (when he succeeded Bush). If you are arguing for consistency, you are arguing against inclusion. Your bold not-vote does not align with your explanation. Please clarify. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - note that @Mandruss: has just breached the 1RR restriction on this article. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  User:Mandruss and User:GoodDay, CUT IT OUT! Do you want to get the article locked again? Edit warring over this very issue was the reason it was reinstated last time. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  And GoodDay, you were in the wrong. As the kids say on the playground, you started it. You should not have added it while the issue was under discussion here. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  User talk:GoodDay#November 2020. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Note: I've partial-blocked GoodDay from this article. I didn't block Mandruss because when I removed the 1RR restriction earlier today I specifically said, "If I see [edit warring] going on I will start blocking people's accounts, starting with the editors who are reverting against the status quo ante, those reverting against emerging consensus on the talk page, and those who are not using helpful WP:Edit summaries that clearly describe what they're doing and why they're doing it." Mandruss AFAICT was reverting toward the status quo, towards the apparent consensus (the vote was 7-4 for omit at the time by my count), and was using good edit summaries. ~Awilley (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Include—Pennsylvania if they don't do a recount will make Biden win with 279 votes. 290 if he wins Arizona. It's reasonable to say that and if faithless electors crash the election that will quickly be shut down. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Omit I thought this was a cut and dry include, but Mandruss and Ivanvector convince me otherwise. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Omit, as per the arguments above. It seems Trump has made this an issue for the first time. But we don't need to bend the rules because he is trying to.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Include per GreatCaesarsGhost and GoodDay.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Include, with extreme prejudice. In every Wikipedia article that mentions the 2020 election, it says that Biden won. Why? Because that's what all reliable sources say. Such sources also all say that Trump's allegations of fraud have no basis in fact. If they say that Biden is the president-elect, we have to say that, and thus, that he will succeed Trump. And, even if you think that the election isn't over or that Trump has a shot at appealing this, it would still be objectively inconsistent to hold out on mentioning that in the infobox, yet to state everywhere else on the site that Biden is pres-elect. In other words, if you, like the reliable sources we trust, think that the election is over, then the choice is clear. If you think that it's not over, then we have to reevaluate every article about 2020 on all of Wikipedia. I imagine no one is in favor of that, so we should include this. Cpotisch (talk) 07:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  This issue is not to do about the election results. If you read up a bit, it's about whether when to put up Biden's name as the Successor based on when he takes up Office. The infobox template clearly states that the successor should not be documented until the handover is done. -- Tytrox (talk) 07:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  Then how come every single candidate who lost re-election this month has their successor listed in their infobox? The point of designating someone “-elect” is that they haven’t assumed the office yet. The consensus on hundreds of other pages seems to be that if the media projects a winner, then, in the eyes of a Wikipedia, that person is the [whatever office]-elect, even without the state certifying the result. Why would it be different here? Either every other page is wrong, or this one is. Cpotisch (talk) 07:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  Then how come every single candidate who lost re-election this month has their successor listed in their infobox? Well, my best guess is that editors there were not aware of the template guidance. If they had been, I think most of them would have supported omission because they believe in generally following guidelines for the sake of site-wide consistency. That's been my experience. The guidance is oddly placed at the end of the template doc's lead, rather than as part of the |successor= parameter description, so it could be easily missed even by editors who know about template doc and how to view it.

  Either every other page is wrong, or this one is. Agree, and I'd say the former. As I've said previously, if any editor believes that a large number of errors resulting from editor unawareness (as opposed to fully informed decisions) means they are no longer errors, they are free to seek to change the template doc to reflect that. Until that is successful, my preference is to follow the doc, not the errors (and correcting the errors would not be an enormous task). ―Mandruss ☎ 09:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  With all due respect, Template documentation does not constitute a policy or guideline, and just because some random bit of text at the bottom of the doc says something that doesn't trump (pun unintended!) actual usage in articles. If all other successors for other posts have already been filled in, then this one should be too, for consistency. And also consistency with what I believe happened on Obama's page when Trump was elected.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  If template parameter usage guidance does not have the same status as a guideline, it serves exactly no purpose or function, represents a significant waste of editor time, and should not exist. In my experience editors who are aware of such guidance treat it as guidelines, understanding that it's the only way to coordinate site-wide consistency in template parameter usage (particularly infobox fields). If we feel site-wide consistency is a worthwhile goal, and I believe we do, the only way to get editors on the same page is to have a common, central place to go for that kind of information. Template doc is that place. Clearly, it would be unreasonable to expect editors to conduct a survey of all existing |successor= parameter usage to determine what they should do. In this case, it's even worse: an editor would have to conduct a survey of all |successor= parameter usage between elections and transitions, researching edit histories and old revisions. That would be utterly unworkable, and something only Wikipedia could come up with (or only en-wiki; I don't know whether, say, the Germans have more sense). ―Mandruss ☎ 10:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Question – how much precedent is there for this in articles on political officeholders? If there is already an uncontroversial (albeit technically incorrect) consensus within this field to use infoboxes this way, then it seems like a good case for WP:IAR (and updating the template guidance), as it's beneficial to the reader. I was going to vote for including, but I'm unsure from reading above exactly what the history is on US presidential articles – did this dispute originate over content (whether someone actually is the president-elect) or has there been past disagreement over using infoboxes this way? Jr8825 • Talk 11:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  My read of the discussion so far, and I've done no research of my own, is as follows. There is apparently wide precedent for inclusion for politicians in general, but precedent for omission for U.S. presidents, per this comment. There is no reason for U.S. presidents to be a special case, so I would say precedent favors inclusion overall.

  As I've said, I'll support inclusion if the template doc is successfully changed to allow inclusion. As I haven't said, I would be on the opposition side as to such a change, as I would prefer to be "technically" correct. I think the existing guidance makes more sense than the precedents. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  In this case, we should Omit the 'succeeded by' field here, for now, as there isn't a consensus on using it for US presidents, and we would need a broader discussion on whether it's appropriate to call a future officeholder a successor (and a consensus in favour) in order to overrule this. I do think this conversation needs to be had sooner rather than later, should we open a discussion at the village pump? A lack of consistency among politicians' infoboxes is not a good thing, especially as it could easily appear as if we're specifically avoiding calling Biden successor given the current controversy. Jr8825 • Talk 14:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  I think a neutrally-framed RfC is in order, but I would do it at Template talk:Infobox officeholder and advertise it in various other talk venues including WP:VPP, WP:VPR, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. It will probably run for at least 30 days, and then might have to wait for weeks for an uninvolved closer, so this discussion should not wait for that outcome. If that outcome differs from this outcome, this article can be changed at that time with little discussion necessary. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  I've added a pre-RfC subsection below. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Omit obviously. Frankly I'm surprised there are editors who want to jump the gun on this. To my mind, this is something that should happen at or after the moment of succession, which is still 70-odd days away. It is important to understand that this field has nothing to do with the results of the election. It should not be predictive or anticipatory, because like the rest of the article it is supposed to reflect what has happened. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Include obviously. We know who Trump's successor will be, and we can and should include (elect) or similar to indicate that this is provisional at the moment. There is no reason why US presidents should be an exception to the widely-used convention in this respect, and it looks downright odd to be omitting the successor from the infobox when it's already known who it will be.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Because Wikipedia isn't meant to be predicting the future. We all think Biden will be President, but we don't know for sure because something could happen in the 70-odd days between now and the inauguration. BLPs are supposed to be written from the historical perspective in the past tense. There's no reason why this cannot wait until January 20. This is how it should be on all BLPs. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Include obviously. I think we need to take into account that the page for Vice President Mike Pence has the "succeeded by" field on the page with mention of Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris. If that page can have the "succeeded by" field, what is there to argue that President Trump's page cannot have such a field. That being said, I understand concern about a possible recount maybe changing the electoral map, but at this point it is very unlikely that any lawsuits would change such a result. I hope this statement can be understood. MyJunoBaldwin (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  The Pence article is not set in stone. One could argue with equal strength that Pence should be consistent with Trump, once we have a resolution here. Has there been anything approaching this amount of discussion participation about this at Pence? If not, how could Pence possibly carry more weight? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  Here is the link to the "Pence" talk page discussion about this specific issue you're asking about Talk:Mike Pence#Remove "Succeeded by" information based on VP-elect Kamala Harris. It is not as robust (or, frankly, as "bigly") as this page's discussion. But someone did use the example of the Obama-Trump discussion, which I believe is linked in this page as well. MyJunoBaldwin (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  Right, that discussion is a tiny fraction of this one, involves far fewer editors, and represents far less scrutiny of the question. It would make no sense for that to govern the content at this article, or even influence it. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Include obviously. It is a disservice to the reader not to include this obvious fact. Also 1) the infobox guidlines are not laws, and as all guidelines they need to meet the moment 2) the Barack Obama and Donald Trump precedent exists and should be followed. The election result was clear then and it is now. Eccekevin (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment It is standard practice to do this, as you can see by pretty much all pages of House and Senate members, regardless of the guidlines. I think another option would be to add (elect) or (designate) in brackets to add clarity, for example as it is on Mark Meadows page in reference to Madison CawthornEccekevin (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - The RfC is now open at: Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC: Interim use of successor=. Please participate there. This discussion should not wait for that outcome, and this article can be changed with no fuss if that outcome is different. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Omit in this instance. This follows the precedent set election Obama's 2008 election and Trump's 2016 election. I would note that in the U.S., the transition between presidents takes considerably longer than in other countries, so presidents-elect should be handled differently than their counterparts elsewhere. -- Calidum 15:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Omit While Biden will become President on January 20, 2021, the succeeded by section should not be added now per precedent and to avoid confusion. Also WP:CRYSTAL. --Enos733 (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Include: we should must follow historical precedent, including but not limited to AP calling elections since 1848, rather than entertain a “flood the zone with shit” disinformation effort that was relentlessly telegraphed for many months by a president and his surrogates/supporters who have abundantly demonstrated their fondness for conspiracy theories and what can be charitably called preposterous falsehoods. We’re not here to assuage anyone’s hurt feelings. soibangla (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Soibangla: Historical precedent is that one is not succeeded until their successor takes office. Wikipedia precedent is the same (as evidenced multiple times in this discussion). Thus, as I've said before, your not-vote is actually against inclusion of it until noon EST on January 20, 2021. I encourage you to either revisit your comment and provide a rationale that actually supports your bolded not-vote or reconsider it altogether, as your comment right now appears attempting to right great wrongs while ignoring Wikipedia guidelines and precedent. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • That's a pretty clear WP:RGW kind of argument. Wikipedia should report on politics and government, not get involved in them, no matter how righteous the goal. Anyway, no one is suggesting the article should deny Biden has been declared president-elect – that can and probably should be done in prose – the question is how we should use a context-free infobox field. So I'll call straw man on that. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
    • My position has nothing to do with RGW or a strawman soibangla (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Include: I always find it useful so you can easily click to whoever is next in line. As far as I know this has always been done, why should it be different for Joe Biden? Johndavies837 (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

  @Johndavies837: Your premise is incorrect, and your question has already received several answers. Feel free to read existing discussion. Or, you can just move on and your !vote will be given equal weight anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Pre-RfC: "Succeeded by" field

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

---

Here's a proposed RfC for Template talk:Infobox officeholder, discussed above. Suggestions for improvement welcome. As I commented above, this article's discussion should not wait for the outcome of the RfC, and the article can be changed with no fuss if the RfC outcome is different. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

(rfc|bio|pol)

This RfC is about the |successor= parameter of {{infobox officeholder}}. When present, this field displays as Succeeded by in the infobox. When an incumbent loses re-election, should the parameter be filled in immediately or wait until the successor takes office? 16:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

BACKGROUND

1. The infobox template doc currently says: "The infobox for an incumbent officeholder should not mention an elected or designated successor, or the end date of the term, until the transition actually takes place."
2. There is apparently quite a bit of precedent for filling in the parameter immediately, adding "(elect)" following the successor's name. The "(elect)" is then removed when the transition takes place.
3. The template doc guidance is oddly placed at the end of the doc's lead, rather than in the |successor= parameter description, so it would be easy to miss. It is unknown whether editors creating the precedents were aware of its existence, or whether such awareness would have affected their edits.
4. In a discussion at Talk:Donald Trump, some of the disagreement centers around the interpretation of the phrase Succeeded by, some editors saying it's past tense and should be treated as such, others saying it can mean "to be succeeded by" when "(elect)" is shown.
5. The goal of this RfC is to establish a community consensus for site-wide consistency in these situations, one way or the other. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion - Perhaps one of the possible options for an RfC could be to add a parameter to the infobox for "elected successor" or "to be succeeded by"? Jr8825 • Talk 16:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm. My take is that "(elect)" adequately accomplishes the same thing, and readers could figure it out without a lot of effort. Your suggestion would add complication to the RfC, possibly reducing the chances of reaching a consensus. If the new parameter was accepted, it would add complexity to the template and its doc – for marginal benefit in my opinion. If somebody wanted to propose such a thing in the RfC discussion, they would be free to do so even if I would oppose; I rarely see RfCs that stick to the options initially presented. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, was just toying with ideas and a more straightforward RfC sounds good. Jr8825 • Talk 16:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: past tense in English does not always refer to a past situation. Take this example: 'in case of the death of the President, he is succeeded by the Vice-President'. This does not indicate a situation in the past but rather it has a determinative function in an a-temporal way. Additionally, including it now simply follows precedent, since the day after the election this is what Barack Obama's page looked like. There is no meaningful or reliable evidence that the result of the election is in question, hence this is no different than 2016.Eccekevin (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Eccekevin: I'm confused by this, as my understanding, based on the comments above by Berchanhimez and Mandruss, was that it was ultimately decided to exclude it from the Obama article until Trump's inauguration – someone's got it wrong. If nobody is able to scour through the history to confirm who is right, I'll do so myself tomorrow. It does matter as my !vote to omit above is based on the assumption that there is no current consensus for including the successor on US presidential articles. Jr8825 • Talk 23:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Eccekevin, you may have a viable point there (tense of "succeeded"), and that could be part of an argument in the RfC discussion. But this section is about how to frame the RfC, and it currently just refers to what editors have said in this discussion. It doesn't take a position on that, so I don't see a need to change that part of it. Do you disagree? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but my point was a linguistic one: a tense is a category that describes the grammatical aspect. In the English language, the past tense does not necessarily indicate that an action has occurred in the past. I just want to make sure that the language in the RfC isn't confusing and it grammatically accurate.Eccekevin (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, help me out here. How would you improve the RfC framing, specifically? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

In agreement with such an RFC. My major concern is consistency across these article infoboxes, concerning 'lame-duck' periods. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll probably start the RfC on Friday unless there is further discussion about improvements. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if it matter, but by digging in the template history, the user that added that line in Template talk:Infobox officeholder (and much of the template itself) is Philip Stevens. Eccekevin (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2020 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2020

Add his multiple accounts of molestation and suggested rape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.248.160 (talk • contribs)

 Already done This is covered under Donald_Trump#Misogyny_and_allegations_of_sexual_assault_and_sexual_misconduct. — Czello 11:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Sentence regarding fraud (versus widespread fraud)

Some level of fraud has been inherent to elections of this scale, and, indeed, the use of mail-in ballots does increase the opportunity for this to took place. I refer to the comments of Attorney General Barr, saying prior to any federal investigation that fraud will be found. However, widespread fraud is far less common; this is where Trump's claims are unsubstantiated. As such, I suggest changing the sentence from "He has made unsubstantiated accusations of electoral fraud, mounted a series of legal challenges to the results, and ordered White House officials not to cooperate in the presidential transition." to "He has made unsubstantiated accusations of widespread electoral fraud, mounted a series of legal challenges to the results, and ordered White House officials not to cooperate in the presidential transition." thorpewilliam (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I reverted your edition because I think "accusations of electoral fraud" conveys the meaning just fine, and 'widespread fraud' would only serve to emphasise Trump's unsubstantiated allegations, rather than explain it more clearly. Jr8825 • Talk 09:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jr8825:Neither sounds particularly favourable to Trump given the use of the adjective "unsubstantiated" however by specifying "widespread" in relation to that I believe it is more accurate both of his claims and of those claims' unsubstantiated qualities. Regardless, the article should intend to be fair and factual, not to emphasise nor diminish anything claimed by the subject beyond what is allowed by reason. I believe it is worthwhile to include the word in the sentence and I don't see it notably changing the article's degree of objectivity. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

indeed, the use of mail-in ballots does increase the opportunity for (fraud) to took place. Studies suggest the opposite. [5][6] And I agree with Jr8825 about not including "widespread". It's not just that he hasn't shown "widespread" fraud; he basically hasn't shown any fraud at all. Federal officials - yes, people in Trump's own administration - have said this was the best run and most secure election in history. [7] -- MelanieN (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Which makes his claims of widespread fraud all the more remarkable, and perhaps article-worthy. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: The source you provided doesn't say mail-in votes are less susceptible to fraud, though fraud remains extremely rare and even more rarely does it bring the outcome of an election into question. However, some level of irregularities (including fraud, wittingly or not) have occurred in every election, albeit nowhere near enough to alter the outcome – "...voting irregularities happen every election but, as our reporting has shown, are extremely rare and don't amount to negating a national election." (USA Today) It is for this reason that I believe it's a worthwhile distinction to make. thorpewilliam (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Legal Affairs and Bankruptcies Clarification

At the end of 2.3 Legal Affairs and Bankruptcies, it says, "In May, DC District Court judge Amit Mehta ruled that Mazars must comply with the subpoena, and judge Edgardo Ramos of the Southern District Court of New York ruled that the banks must also comply." The use of "also" at the end of the sentence implies that the banks and something else have to comply with the subpoena. This is not the case: it is the judge that is different, not the banks. Therefore, for clarity, I propose changing this sentence to: "In May, DC District Court judge Amit Mehta ruled that Mazars must comply with the subpoena, and judge Edgardo Ramos of the Southern District Court of New York also ruled that the banks must comply." In this sentence, the word "also" comes before "ruled" instead of "comply." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrytzkalmyr (talk • contribs) 22:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Extra Commas in Racial Views

6.6 Racial Views: "Trump's comments in reaction to the 2017 Charlottesville far-right rally were interpreted, by some, as implying a moral equivalence between white supremacist demonstrators and counter-protesters." "by some" is not an appositive or parenthetical element, so the commas are not correctly placed. The sentence should read as follows: "Trump's comments in reaction to the 2017 Charlottesville far-right rally were interpreted by some as implying a moral equivalence between white supremacist demonstrators and counter-protesters," with the commas around "by some" removed. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done - Sounds reasonable enough for a BOLD edit, subject to challenge. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Repetition

From 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." From 6.3 False Statements: "As president, Trump has frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks. The misinformation has been documented by fact-checkers; academics and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics." This is largely word-for-word. Do we really need the same thing twice? I think we should at least rephrase it. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You have a point, and I'd suggest that any change should be to the body, not the lead, which is covered by #Current consensus #35. I'd also suggest that this a relatively minor issue that could be deferred. Readers are unlikely to even notice the repetitiveness. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Also this specific bit of lead wording may well change, depending on the outcome of the discussion above. Jr8825 • Talk 00:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Third Paragraph of Intro is Largely Unorganized

The third paragraph goes from his political positions to the 2016 election results to protests to lies to racist statements. I fail to see how these are connected. Should we try to reorganize the introduction to make it more connected? Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to hear your more specific suggestions. It seems to me that, when you have a lot of brief, unrelated things like that, the only options are to throw them together in a paragraph or create a bunch of one- or two-sentence paragraphs. Not sure how we could "reorganize" that. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, for the political positions, do we really need that in the lead? I'm a relatively new user, so I'm not sure how much weight this argument carries, but I haven't seen political positions being described in the leads of the articles for former presidents. The part about the election as well as the sentence after it can go right before the Russian interference investigation part in the lead, as this topic is directly connected to the 2016 election. I think the sentence about protests can also be included with that, as it was a response to the election. The false statements and racially charged/racist comments can stay together, as both are examples of public statements. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd say how much weight that argument carries depends on who's around. Some think it's important for U.S. presidents' leads to be consistent in ways like that; I'm not one of them. Things are complicated enough without creating such linkages.

Simply rearranging things without changing them is less controversial in my experience, provided there is some cogent rationale. I think it would help if you wrote a proposed paragraph 3 and wrapped it in a {{tq2}} template for easy readability. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I was going to suggest exactly the same thing, if you could make a draft mock-up of your suggestions it'll be easier to visualise what you're suggesting. Regarding Trump's political positions, they're included because reliable sources have noted that they're remarkable for a US president and have been the defining characteristics of his presidency. Jr8825 • Talk 00:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Source

You have GOT to source this line, in the last paragraph before the fold, "Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic". What is 'slowly'? His administration addressed the issue in January 2020, when the virus was in its infancy. Yes, he handled the outbreak poorly, but that's easy to say in hindsight. I would argue that he reacted quickly but ineffectively to COVID-19. --Sebanderson (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Have you had a look at the corresponding entry under #Current consensus above? In any case, worth being aware of MOS:LEADCITE. Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The whole sentence is synthesis of *opinion* stated as fact in a BLP. This is a hard libel which is very legally problematic as written and should be removed immediately or phrased to be clearly the opinion of his opponents. Coming to a consensus on WP does not wash it of legal problems. WP is not a place for pushing political stances as if they were hard facts. — al-Shimoni (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

How can you be here twelve years and not understand that citing reputable sources is just that and not staking a claim in and of itself? The whole point isn't that what's being said is a fact, it's that it's a fact it's being said. This *also* isn't the place to explore your insecurities about him facing a loss. If you have an argument to make, make it in good faith in the interest of the truth and not fandom. 2603:9001:6B08:9E6A:61F0:4EE2:4AC3:4A50 (talk) 06:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC) 06:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:WIKIVOICE clearly states that opinions should not be stated in wikivoice, and should be attributed in the text to a source or as a widespread view rather than presented without caveat in wikivoice as if it were a fact.Sandman9083 (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Presidential evaluation by historians

At the end of every President's intro section, there has been a short blurb about whether or not their presidency is regarded as favorable, unfavorable, or mediocre. When will we add Trump's evaluation and how will it be decided what is put? CoryJosh (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I think we need at least ten years of historical perspective before we even think about that. Let's discuss it in 2031. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Such material is based on the consensus of reliable sources. If there is already a consensus among reliable sources there is no reason to wait ten years. The only reason that we would often, in the case of a more normal politician (e.g. Justin Trudeau or Alexander De Croo), have to wait for a little while (not necessarily ten years), is that we would have to wait for a consensus of reliable sources to emerge (for example the publication of books and scholarly articles doesn't happen overnight). In Trump's case a consensus among historians, political scientists and other scholars that he is considered the worst president in American history appears to be present already now. We already cover this in other articles such as Historical rankings of presidents of the United States: "APSA conducted a repeat of this poll in 2018, with Donald Trump appearing for the first time, in last position". I expect that there will a ton of further reliable sources elaborating on this, and that we should at the very least add something about this within the next year or so, but probably sooner, like within the next couple of months.

We included Obama's legacy (although Obama was a more normal and uncontroversial politician who didn't do anything outrageous or radical, and who had good relations with his predecessor) within a year or so after he left office ("Since leaving office, his presidency has been favorably ranked by historians and the American general public"[8]). No need to wait ten times longer for Trump who has behaved in such a way that it is a hundred times easier for reliable sources to form a firm opinion regarding his presidency. --Tataral (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Those reliable sources may soften their tone in ten years. That's one of the reasons to wait. I can't speak for the wisdom, or lack thereof, of editors at other articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

If a new consensus were to emerge regarding Trump in ten, hundred or thousand years, we would cover that at that time, but we can't wait to cover something because something might happen in the distant future, or because the future may see things differently (for example, had Wikipedia existed during the Roman Empire, it wouldn't make sense for them to wait 2,000 years to cover their leaders until the "correct" perspective prevailed in RS). Trump has been the world's most visible man for about five years and we have some five years of massive RS coverage of him now (including the time when when he was a candidate). If we were to add something to this article about his legacy in a year or so it would rely on about six of coverage of the world's most visible man in academic and media sources, which is more than enough for us to include something about this when there is a clear RS consensus. Stating that his presidency is viewed unfavourably and that he is ranked among the worst U.S. presidents is a no-brainer, completely uncontroversial in terms of how he is viewed by RS and ranked by scholars. --Tataral (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I think we could make some comment, cautiously. However, we shouldn't have a sentence in the lead if it isn't reflected in the body. But it is really pointless to include snap judgments about Trump being the worst president ever. The article can speak for itself.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

should->shouldn't ―Mandruss ☎ 13:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I have corrected my comment (in bold). Sorry about that.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

When the well-regarded C-SPAN Survey on Presidents comes out, we'll almost certainly want to include material on that (a longer version in the body and probably one sentence in the lead); this is an authoritative scholarly survey that usually gets significant attention. They only do the survey periodically, however - most recently in 2000, 2009, and 2017 - so it might be a while before a new iteration comes out. Neutrality^talk 23:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Want to bet they do one in 2021? Looks to me like they do one every time an administration is replaced by a new one. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

IMO we shouldn't be reporting any evaluations of his presidency or place in history until he has been out of office for at least a year. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding how long we should wait once he's left office, I think we should cross that bridge when we get to it. It doesn't seem as though this conversation is worth having while he's still president. Jr8825 • Talk 18:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden

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

---

Why can’t we add Joe Biden’s name as the successor. Trump lost the electoral college. Why can’t we add Biden as Joe Biden (Elect). Pls let’s add it so we can move on. Michaeljacksonfan104 (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

See the lengthy debates here — Czello 21:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

More to the point, that extensive discussion failed to reach a consensus. In such cases, the default is to omit the disputed content. See also the open discussion about general use of the field between election and succession, at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Interim use of successor in Infobox officeholder, which currently heavily favors waiting until the successor takes office. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Now, it’s official. It is not disputed anymore. Emily Murphy confirmed Biden as the winner. Michaeljacksonfan104 (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The transition has begun a few minutes ago. It’s time to do so Michaeljacksonfan104 (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

As I already explained, the community currently heavily opposes putting anything in that field until the successor takes office – regardless of whether it’s official. It is not disputed anymore. Unless and until that trend makes a dramatic reversal, we are not putting anything in that field until Biden takes office. That's how things work at Wikipedia. Please drop the stick. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I've looked back in the edit history of Barack Obama even into the beginning of January 2017, and that is how we handled it then as well. Donald Trump was not added as the successor in the infobox until he actually took office and had succeeded Obama. I see no reason to do differently here. It has nothing to do with approving of the fact that Biden will be the next president or not; he hasn't succeeded Trump until he's actually succeeded Trump. Until then, he's president-elect, not president. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

If the community consensus is inconsistent with what we did at Obama, it won't matter what we did at Obama. So I'd say your comment misses the point and blurs the process issue, even if it provides some consolation to the OP. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks greatly for the explanation. My greatest apologies. When I saw Obama’s article in 2016, It did list Donald Trump as the president elect so it did establish confusion for me. Michaeljacksonfan104 (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh sincere apologies. My brain isn’t operating sufficiently at the moment. Michaeljacksonfan104 (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2020 (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.

Lead COVID-19 wording, "Trump reacted slowly"

Does the phrase "Trump reacted slowly" meet the following 3 tests against main components of our WP:NPOV policy?

• Avoid stating facts as opinions: Is "Trump reacted slowly" an uncontested and uncontroversial factual statement (per the WP:WEIGHT of WP:RS)?

→ Passes test A Factual assertions ... should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice → wikivoice is appropriate; maintain the current wording.

• Avoid stating opinions as facts: Is "Trump reacted slowly" a significant opinion rather than a fact?

→ Fails test B Opinions should be attributed in the text → maintain the current wording with attribution (e.g. "Trump's response has been characterized as")

• Prefer non-judgmental language: Is "Trump reacted slowly" non-judgemental or is the language justified by a balance against clarity?

→ Fails test C Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts ... the tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial → consider rewording to maintain an impartial tone.

If editors feel that the phrasing may fail tests B or C, would the following be an improvement:

Suggestions for alternative wording:

• In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump initially downplayed the threat to public health, ignored or contradicted recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.
• (added)Trump's response to the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated/worsened its effects, he downplayed... (is considered to have?)
• (added)Trump's response to the COVID-19 pandemic was/has been ineffective, he downplayed...

Note on current consensus: Current consensus #48 states "there is no consensus on specific wording" on COVID-19 in the lead. It identifies the current phrasing as the "status-quo", retained on the basis of the extensive discussion surrounding it, rather than an explicit consensus in favour of it; some editors have expressed the view that a consensus would be required before making substantive changes. Following the closer's comments at the RfC, closed on 23 August, this section intends to focus on identifying and improving specific problems with the wording. It does not seek to overturn any aspect of CC#48. Jr8825 • Talk 14:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Has the previous text been restored? The proposed version is not better. It omits the sentence that gives an overview and orients the reader for the litany of failures that is recited in the "suggestion..." above. With the benefit of an additional several additional months' perspective, the word "slowly" seems euphemistic. SPECIFICO talk 14:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Why would we continue to give UNDUE weight to the "China travel ban"? Except for the insistent repetition of Trump and his supporters, there is no RS weight that calls this significant or even effective. Moreover, the lack of action on travel from Europe for over a month after Trump knew of the danger is acknowledged and cited by RS but not duly covered here. SPECIFICO talk 15:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: euphemistic for killing lots of Americans, I presume? Do RS now spell this out clearly? A Google search finds this article in Nature saying "many experts blame Trump for the country’s failure to contain the outbreak". Are we able to say something close to this? The problem is that the article's author isn't saying it unequivocally themselves (they're attributing it to "many experts"). I still think that "Trump reacted slowly" isn't good enough for Wikipedia, as you said, it's euphemistic and if a scientific journal article isn't ready to state something like this without attribution, how can we do so as an encyclopedia? As a Brit looking in, it doesn't seem consistent (for example, by deaths per capita, Boris Johnson's response has been equally inept and deadly; much of the UK press has been utterly witheringly critical and you'd have an easy time finding RS saying that his government's response was deadly slow, yet the Boris Johnson article doesn't say "Johnson reacted slowly"). In my view, we either need to (1) take a route around such analytical wording in the lead until the sources are in place, while retaining the scathing facts (my suggestion) (2) attribute it (like Nature, as the current text introduced by Wikieditor19920 does, or (3) be more explicit, as you're suggesting, if we can find an uncontested and uncontroversial factual statement that's more explanatory. My !vote would for taking any of these options over the current wording. Jr8825 • Talk 15:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Please drop this straw man about Trump killing people. The coronavirus is not Vince Foster. I have said no such thing and I've already needed to emphasize that in the "Biased" section above. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 15:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry SPECIFICO, I didn't intend to paraphrase you there, or comment on your views. I should've made it clearer I was extending my thought process out from the points you'd made. My phasing was not good either, what I should've said was 'exacerbating the mortality rate', which isn't a straw man as such (I mean, it's the end result of his disastrous response, and I've read RS saying this) but this is definitely a step into more sensitive territory, so I'll leave this be as there are more productive directions to take this conversation. Jr8825 • Talk 17:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Assert facts, not opinions says that facts include "information that is accepted as true and about which there is no serious dispute." That is the situation here. TFD (talk) 15:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: The thing is, while I personally agree that Trump reacted slowly, I'm not comfortable with saying such a broad, blanket statement in Wikipedia's voice, particularly as it's still a current event (so we don't have the benefit of hindsight or historiography). ASSERT is a very strong argument for keeping the wording as it is, but I still feel it's too judgemental – it's negative, and it implies Trump reacted slowly in every single aspect (not just policy, but also misunderstanding it and privately not taking it seriously). This could certainly be true (I suspect it is) and some RS may have speculated this, but we can't say with authority what was going on inside his head. The flipside is he could've been deliberately holding off on action for any other reason (economic concerns related to personal electoral interests, for example). The US is not the only country that responded appallingly to the pandemic – Bolsonaro's lead is much better in my view: Bolsonaro's response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil was criticized across the political spectrum; he sought to downplay the pandemic and its effects, opposed quarantine measures, and fired two health ministers, while the death toll increased rapidly. It's not that I want to avoid negative commentary, it's that I feel this particular phrase is inherently problematic. Jr8825 • Talk 17:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

No doubt there is mitigation: the U.S. does not have universal health care, it has a federal system, citizens don't listen to government instructions or science and few leaders did not respond slowly. I don't remember Biden and Pelosi making any suggestions about what to do and they had the same information Trump had. Nonetheless it is more accurate to say that Trump was criticized for responding slowly rather than critics say he responded slowly. TFD (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's arguing for "critics say he responded slowly", the problem is the status quo wording is "Trump reacted slowly" not "Trump was criticized for responding slowly" (and, since we're having this discussion, perhaps we can find a better alternative to "slow" anyway (see the chain below bouncing ideas off Bdushaw). Jr8825 • Talk 18:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Avoid using Wiki voice It is a fact that he was widely criticized for his response and it is appropriate to acknowledge this. We should steer from using Wiki voice and restating criticisms where unnecessary. It's not the job of Wikipedia to criticize, it's our job to summarize criticisms. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there any reasonable opinion that Trump did not react slowly? If not, then it is misleading to imply that there is. TFD (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

There's no need for criticism in Wiki voice. Simply stating what he did in factual terms ought to be enough. Spudlace (talk) 05:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. WP:WIKIVOICE is clear that opinions should not be made in wiki voice, and just because an opinion isn't challenged in a RS, doesnt transform it into a fact. Sandman9083 (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The issue is tricky because it is an assessment of the degree that Trump was viewed as slow. The classic example is we do not say "the earth is widely viewed as round", although flat earthers might like to have "the earth is sometimes viewed as flat" - rather, in wikivoice, "the earth is round". In the Trump case we are attempting to assess whether RS is sufficiently unambiguous that the question has no significant lingering doubt. I would say so - but we can look for citations that argue that the proper response was to go slow... If it were me, just now, I would attempt an entirely new statement, updated to the recent facts, and not belabor this particular point. The facts are, however, bad for Trump, politically - seems unavoidable. Bdushaw (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bdushaw: toying with ideas here:

• Trump's response to the COVID-19 pandemic (is considered to have?) exacerbated/worsened its effects, he downplayed...
• Trump's response to the COVID-19 pandemic was/has been ineffective, he downplayed...

these use wikivoice and can be supported with RS. I'm still not 100% about not using attribution, but these seem like more direct statements than the inherently subjective-sounding 'reacted slowly'. Jr8825 • Talk 17:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Something like this might work, though I am no referee. I was just thinking that the SQ statement was derived from a chronological perspective (start->finish), whereas we might now do better taking a wide-angle view of Trump's 11-month history of pandemic response. An important aspect now, unclear before, is how Trump politicized the pandemic response; medical facts are not important, but if you wear a mask you are against me, etc. Earlier today I was noting that Trump is not at all assisting the nascent Biden administration in formulating its pandemic strategy. I believe the objection to "slow" is political rather than factual, however, so any statement that comes off making Trump look bad will likely continue to have problems. Bdushaw (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

A subclause ("politicized the pandemic response due to the approaching US presidential election") may be a good candidate for inclusion in a new sentence. re: the objection to "slow", it's not just political: "slow" may be factual, but it's also, fundamentally, a judgement of some kind, even if it's a widely held, uncontested judgement. (What constitutes "slow"? And, as you pointed out, to what degree was he slow, as it's always a relative thing?) In contrast, saying the earth is round, or that the impact of COVID would've been lessened if the US federal government had taken actions it didn't, or communicated the risk of COVID-19 better, aren't inherently judgements. Jr8825 • Talk 18:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Whether the earth is spherical or not is a fact that can be scientifically proven, regardless of your expectations or thoughts on the matter. Whether Trump's response was "slow" depends on expectations and competing priorities, and is clearly a broad opinion statement. WP:WIKIVOICE states that opinions should not be stated in wiki voice as if it were a fact, but should rather be attributed to the source or described as a widespread view in the text. Sandman9083 (talk) 04:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Another way the issue might be approached is if we say "critics say" (or whatever) to then actually be able to list those critics. For the statement in question you have, e.g. "NY Times, WA Post, health officials, doctors, New England Journal of Medicine, etc etc say..." The list is long indeed - so seems to me we can drop "critics say" (or whatever). Bdushaw (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable sources are pretty clear that Trump "reacted slowly" (an extremely charitable summary, if anything). I'm not aware of any significant equal or comparable weight of independent reliable sources disputing this, or claiming he acted swiftly or effectively. So Wikipedia policy is quite clear on how to handle this - we reflect reliable sources, and we don't water them down with weasel words or create the appearance of uncertainty where none actually exists. A neutral, WP:NPOV-compliant summary is one that accurately reflects the weight of reliable sources, not one that satisfies editors' personal commitments to both-sidesism. At some point we have to tell readers the truth and resist the urge to rewrite history. MastCell ^Talk 16:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

  Anyway, why all the concern about his delayed, slow, or negligent policies? They were all within his presidential authority and discretion. Let's not impose any value judgment on the documented RS fact. SPECIFICO talk 17:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Specifico: Your characterization of "weasel words" is incorrect. It is standard practice to use terms like "widely criticized" or "widely acknowledged" in leads, and this is perfectly acceptable as long as specific attribution is provided later in the body. MOS:LEAD. This does not fall under WP:WEASEL. I thought you were aware of that. Second, attribution is not "watering down," it is how we describe observations by commentators without asserting them as fact. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

You talkin' to me? I don't see that I used "weasel" on this page? I do think that with the benefit of 10 months' hindsight, "slow" is not the salient description of Trump's approach. It's more widely described in RS as abdication. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Providing attribution for widely held understandings of the world or events, when there is no actual substantive disagreement among reliable sources, is a) poor writing, and b) potentially misleading. To say that Trump was "widely criticized" for acting slowly is like saying that HIV is "widely believed" to be the cause of AIDS. It's literally true, and satisfies a particular narrowly technical concept of "neutrality", but it's also misleading and at odds with Wikipedia's definition of neutrality, which enjoins us to avoid presenting widely accepted realities as if they were opinions (even "widely-held" ones). MastCell ^Talk 18:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Inapt analogy. We don't compare scientific facts with analytical commentary. Obviously it is disputed, no doubt along partisan fault lines. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor, in assessing DUE WEIGHT, you need to be sure to exclude Trump's own statements and those of self-interested parties and allies who repeat them. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

According to the Discovery Channel, "In science, a fact is an observation that's been confirmed so many times that scientists can, for all intents and purposes, accept it as "true." But everything in science comes with a level of uncertainty, so nothing is ever scientifically "true" beyond a shadow of a doubt."[9] Scientific facts, such as whether Covid-19 actually exists or is a hoax created by George Soros, are disputed along partisan lines. It's only in religious fundamentalism and conspiracism that one finds absolute certainty. TFD (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikiedtor19920, While I never get tired of self-assured pseudonymous editors explaining how science works to me, TFD is correct. The role of HIV in causing AIDS is the result of "analytical commentary", and continues to be disputed vigorously be a small fringe of partisans. Yet we present it in Wiki-voice, without attribution, because there is no significant dispute in reliable sources. Likewise with Trump's slow reaction to the Covid-19 pandemic. MastCell ^Talk 23:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@MastCell: Perhaps a brush-up on policy, then. It's a ridiculous analogy. Criticisms are opinions, not assertions of fact. We do not restate subjective characterizations in Wiki voice. "Slow reaction" is one such characterization; maybe it has merit to it, but that doesn't change the analysis. It must be attributed. That is part of writing a detached, neutral summary. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Support This is a far better version. To describe something as slow is an opinion, and should be properly attributed as an opinion if it is to be included. If for whatever reason it is "charitable" to say that Trump was slow, then we should absolutely not be charitable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Support This version is much more neutral than the current wording and sticks to the facts, If a majority of the other world leaders had reacted sooner, then the current wording would be okay, however, that is not the case as a majority of world leaders reacted in the same timeframe as trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackBird1008 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Just some ideas: the statement "Trump's pandemic response was ineffective..." does bypass the "slow" question, though it could still be construed as an opinion (I don't think it is, but others may). The phrase "widely criticized across the political spectrum" (above) is more a statement as to a political assessment of the man, than a characterization of a particular response per se. One factor important here and elsewhere in the article, but not described properly yet, is the degree to which people respond to the actions and statements of a president. Trump's rhetoric and examples were picked up on by many people, leading to such poor pandemic response (in Red states particularly); people follow their leader; even globally people have followed Trump. Rallies, take malaria drugs, no masks, no social distancing, it's no problem if you are macho enough, etc. All eventually leading to the present dangerous circumstance of runaway infections, even prior to the start of the dangerous winter season, c.f., recent Fouci statements. So a phrase something like "Trump set dangerous examples in pandemic response" may be in order. Then there is an abrogation of Federal leadership/coordination with respect to such things as scarcity of personal protection equipment, states fending for themselves, etc, indeed an abrogation of any Federal response at all at the moment. Perhaps still too early for such an effort, but our prior Discussion featured a table of various possibilities, which allowed editors to see all the possibilities and state their preferences. In short, beyond the "slow" question, there are a wide range of possibilities as to a revised statement, if people want to open this Pandora's box. Bdushaw (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

And extraordinary pressure to open economies early, a source of much of the present problem. That particular issue occurred toward the tail end of our previous discussions, I believe. Bdushaw (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

We would still need to attribute a characterisation as ineffective, as that is also a matter of opinion. It is not as if there is a significant reliable opinion that says Trump was not slow, it is that this is still an opinion, even if an expert one. There is also quite a lack of sources provided that characterise the response primarily as slow, rather than other views like ineffective, negligent and so on. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Support Attribution is required. This is an assessment, and users here have been sloppy to treat it as fact, because that assessment varies slightly from source to source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I oppose the various changes proposed by Jr8825, for much the same reasons as stated by MastCell and others. Our job is to faithfully reflect the reliable sources, and the current text does that. I've also reverted a recent addition that adds in the hedging language and removes "falsely" with respect to the various bogus COVID-19-related statements. That runs afoul of WP:EVALFRINGE, among other principles. There is certainly no consensus as to those changes. Neutrality^talk 22:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I haven't been part of this discussion but I was pinged to it. I'm going to say this very loudly: Do not change the article while this discussion is underway. There has been edit warring over this, and if there is any more of it I am going to request full protection again. This sentence has been formally discussed and formally closed several times; there was virtually unanimous support for saying something in the lead, and a majority but not a formal consensus for what became the status quo wording: Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he downplayed the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. (BTW somebody said I wrote that version; actually that version was written by User:Neutrality as an improvement on something I had proposed, and I immediately agreed with their version.) If you have a different opinion or a better way to word it, by all means propose it here and let's discuss it. That’s how this discussion was started, by User:Jr8825, and by all means let’s continue it. Maybe we can come up with a better wording. If so, it should be clearly proposed and debated, as the previous discussions were, and not implemented unless and until there appears to be considerable support for it. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I am unsure of suggestions for a way forward, but I will say some things that may be indisputable. It seems to me this "slow" business is intractable and we should try a different approach. Things have evolved since the status quo statement was derived, and for all this effort we may be better off striving for a new, updated statement that describes COVID-19 and Trump, a defining problem for the Trump administration. A good place to start would be "Trump downplayed the danger" (hence minimized the Federal response) since he explicitly says as much. RE "slow" and "weasel words", I suspect the problem is more general - that there will always be those that want the weasel words in characterizing Trump's response, however that is done, and those that see sufficient sourcing that the additional wording should be left out. We should be able to find factual wording, less about characterization more about factual, that allows us to leave out the "weasel words". Indisputable is the existence of the election campaign and how that influenced Trump, e.g., the dangerous rallies, statements about vaccines sooner rather than later. A final indisputable fact is a consequence of the lack of a sufficient Federal response is the present runaway infection rate and lack of an updated strategy for dealing with it; the Trump administration has thrown its hands up. Can we devise a suitable statement that is so sufficiently factual as to avoid assessments/opinions? Bdushaw (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Would it be satisfactory to merely change it from Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he downplayed the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. to Trump downplayed the threat of the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Just kicking around ideas, how about Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump downplayed its threat and minimized the Federal response; he ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, politicized pandemic mitigation measures in the run up to the 2020 election, and promoted false information about unproven treatments, the availability of testing, and vaccine timelines. Perhaps something along those lines, encompassing the 11 months of pandemic? A severe constraint, and a source of conflict, is that a statement for the lead has to be concise, hence the statement is easily uncomfortably pointed. Bdushaw (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

(The other problem with "slow" it occurs to me, is that it carries an implication that the response sped up later, whereas that is not obviously true.) Bdushaw (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

A revision, already: Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump downplayed its threat; he ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, politicized mitigation measures in the run up to the 2020 election, and promoted false information about unproven treatments, testing, and vaccines. Bdushaw (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Instead of the euphemistic "slow" the first sentence should just state Trump did not mount any effective measures to mitigate the spread of the virus, instead adopting a policy of denial and distraction.. Then the rest of what you wrote makes good sense, and with the benefit of 10.4375 months experience, RS no longer say "slow" response, they say "no" response. SPECIFICO talk 19:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, we seek a consensus statement/others will suggest, but another revision incorporating your suggestion might be Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump downplayed its threat and did not orchestrate any effective virus mitigation measures; he ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, politicized mitigation measures in the run up to the 2020 election, and promoted false information about unproven treatments, testing, and vaccines. The "2020 election" phrase gives a logical lead in to the election sentences presently in the lead. We leave out canceling the pandemic program in Fall 2019, withdrawing from WHO, and continuing to try to delete the ACA. Bdushaw (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Not sure orchestration is among his skills. Maybe "conduct", to keep within your imagery. I think my blue version has the benefit of stating the context directly upfront. BTW we should all be referring to the standing article text for any lead edit. SPECIFICO talk 19:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I think all of these are improvements over "slow" myself. A couple of redundant words I think can be cut are "any effective virus mitigation measures" and "contradicted many recommendations from health", (it's harder to make the case that any is uncontested, virus is obvious from the context and many is an unnecessary qualification). I'm not keen on 'orchestration', or even 'conducted', I would stick with 'implemented'. The disadvantage of Bdushaw's first suggestions (i.e. jumping straight into downplayed the threat) is the point someone made about my similar initial suggestion, which is that it removes the analytical overview to which the other facts relate (personally I think the facts would still speak for themselves, but it would be advantageous to have an overarching summary as I'm confident we have the sourcing for it). The alternative to SPECIFICO's "Trump did not mount effective measures" would be the suggestion I made above, "Trump's response to the COVID-19 pandemic was ineffective, he downplayed, which at the moment is probably my preference. Jr8825 • Talk 11:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

"Support there has been a fair amount of debate over this sentence. "Trump's response to the COVID-19 pandemic was/has been ineffective, he downplayed..." seems like a fair compromise. It is difficult to measure if it was specifically exacerbated but there seems to be enough consensus that it at least was inneffective to stop the spread throughout the country.Anon0098 (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad to see us discussing and coming up with versions. Keep it up. My only comment at this point is to oppose the additional sentence that SPECIFICO suggested. We are talking about the lead section of a very large biography, with a subject about whom there is an enormous amount to say, and I think we need to keep our coronavirus material to a single sentence. We should focus on what he did, as the proposed sentences here do - rather than what he didn't do, or evaluations of his response. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I could see that, however in that spirit we do need to convey his choice not to confront the threat. His response was not downplayed or ineffective. It was, for various documented reasons, denial. So instead of "downplayed", how about "denied the scope of"? SPECIFICO talk 21:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The thing about "downplayed" is the man himself used the term, hence it is unassailable by editors. Bring in "denied the scope of" and we'll get "characterized as denying the scope of"... I am uncertain of how strong the RS is for "denial" or even "ineffective", bearing in mind that I'm not the one you have to convince. Though "denial" is fairly well already encompassed in the recent suggestions, really. I also keep reminding myself that the Feds abandoned the pandemic material support question, leaving the states to fight for themselves; the dire straits of hospitals and care givers across the nation in terms of materials/ventilators/etc will only get worse. "Left pandemic response planning and material support to the states" might be a phrase to use. (I don't advocate anything at this point, and seek to see the responses of others.) Bdushaw (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, it seems to me the present article text does not make any case for "denial" - that would need to be developed. Covid denial/Atlantic Bdushaw (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Its possible that the case could be made that Trump abandoned all pandemic response at the time of the election; wasn't there reporting that "there is nothing that can be done"? Perhaps not denial, but accepted hopelessness. Bdushaw (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Another thing to bear in mind is that we will likely have to have an RfC for any statement that seems like it might be successful, unless there is obvious support for it/minimal objections to it. Bdushaw (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

For my part, I am fine with the status quo, so it is really up to the no-slowly editors to gain consensus for any improvement. The decision to ignore the threat has now been central to RS coverage, but I forget how well referenced it is in the current article text. SPECIFICO talk 22:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

BTW do we have a good source for "politicized mitigation measures in the run up to the 2020 election"? Is it put that way in sources, do we have it referenced in the article text? Otherwise we probably shouldn't say it in the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I think there's plenty of sourcing for this, a Google search for "trump politicized mask wearing" turns up 1,250,000 results and, at least here in the UK, the first page is almost entirely reliable sources. One possible issue I can see is that the Biden campaign also politicized the coronavirus response by focusing their campaign on it. Obviously this isn't a fair or equal comparison, as the government of the day should put public health first and it was in response to Trump's failure to take action to a crisis (so a legitimate political issue), but potentially an objection we'd have to address at an RfC. Jr8825 • Talk 11:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

RE Politicizing measures/election The issue could be made more clear in the article and further development is warranted, e.g., Philly Inquirer on Trump pressuring PA to reopen early as part of his campaign measure; also USA Today/PA reopening. There are countless factors that were politicized on account of the election - e.g., masking, social distancing, Trump's super-spreader rally events (costing Herman Cain his life and infecting 180 Secret Service agents), political pressures on health agencies, and particularly political pressure for battleground states to reopen early. Then there was Trump's behavior while he was battling his own virus; he was definitely making political statements. The case can easily be made, but some work on the article would be helpful. We are severely cramped by the excessive length of the article, however. (IMO Trump's pandemic response over the last 11 months was: (a) I don't have a clue what to do (nor will I listen to anyone), and (b) I will take whatever action I need to win on 3 November.) Bdushaw (talk) 12:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Support changing wording: WP:WIKIVOICE states that opinions, even mainstream opinions, should be attributed in the text as such. adding "Trump's response has been characterized as" would be a great improvement. Sandman9083 (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Table of Options

A table to be kept at the bottom of this Talk section to keep track of the various options. The aim here is for the table to help evolution toward a consensus statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdushaw (talk • contribs) 11:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Options for Lead Statement Describing Trump and COVID-19

Version	Lead Text	+Politicized?	Notes/Supported by Article?
SQ	Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he downplayed the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.		Status quo
A1	In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump initially downplayed the threat to public health, ignored or contradicted recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.		Only avoiding "slow"
A2	Trump downplayed the threat of the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.		Only avoiding "slow"
B	Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump downplayed its threat; he ignored or contradicted recommendations from health officials, politicized mitigation measures in the run up to the 2020 election, and promoted false information about unproven treatments, testing, and vaccines.	Y
C1	Trump did not mount any effective measures to mitigate the spread of the virus, instead adopting a policy of denial and distraction.		"Any effective measures" First sentence
C2	Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump downplayed its threat and did not implement any effective virus mitigation measures; he ignored or contradicted recommendations from health officials, politicized mitigation measures in the run up to the 2020 election, and promoted false information about unproven treatments, testing, and vaccines.	Y	"Any effective measures" Text needs work
D	Trump's response to the COVID-19 pandemic was ineffective, he downplayed the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.		"Response ... ineffective"
Z	Template

I don't think we should keep this table on the talk page. There appears to be no consensus for changing the text, and unlike other text that's glued in place with claims of "implicit consensus" (AKA old age), this bit was thoughtully widely and deeply discussed on this talk page. It's always good to improve any part of the article, but I would not elevate or prioritize this based only on the preference of a few editors who periodically test the waters. SPECIFICO talk 20:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

There appears to be no consensus for changing the text – what makes you say this, SPECIFICO? From reading the comments in the above section, I think there may well be a weak consensus forming in favour of change, particularly if we can refine the suggestions above and narrow them down to 2 or 3 preferred alternatives. (There definitely isn't a consensus against change, at the very least). I agree with Bdushaw that the table is a practical way of organising a complex discussion, particularly as it's so dense that it may discourage the involvement of fresh eyes. Ideally we can take forward a small number of suggestions, so that they can be presented alongside the SQ in a more straightforward discussion. If your concern is purely because you think a table "elevates" it above other discussion, perhaps it can be wrapped in a collapsible section to avoid taking up too much space? Jr8825 • Talk 21:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, retaining the SQ is always an option - people spoke fairly bitterly about changing the SQ. If SQ remains, I would suggest it be elevated from "status quo" to "consensus" statement, however; enough with the tom foolery. I've tried to do the right thing, organize, develop, and present other options, but have noted that the people who initiated this process with strong complaints have not come forward with their own options. Seems to be complain about it, but make no good-faith effort to fix it... Regarding "slow", some people have called it an opinion, but being as how this is in regards to pandemic, the speed of response is a scientific/medical factor; as scientific as the earth is flat. One silly option would be to actually include a list of people/organizations that have criticized Trump as slow (News agencies, medical associations, doctors, etc. have criticized Trump as slow); there is guidance to that effect, to be specific, though in this case it would certainly look like poor writing. I think I will step aside from this discussion now (noting the sinkhole of time for little reward), with a support for the SQ as a consensus if no better statement can be developed and agreed upon here. It's clear there will be endless complaints about whatever is developed, sorry to say. I've noted in the news reports that people are dying in North Dakota of COVID, while angrily denying their state to hospital staff; ultimately an effect of Trump disinformation. As a world we seem to be on the brink of abandoning the Age of Enlightenment. Bdushaw (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

If we don't see the improved text here, then there cannot be consensus for an unspecified alternative. In general there's always consensus for improving every article and every part of WP. There's no such thing as a meaningful but unspecified consensus to improve a few sentences. I should say, however that I misread your post above to say that you thought the table should be pinned to the page rather than pinned to the section and archived when it expires. So it's a bit less elevated, now that I see what you said. SPECIFICO talk 00:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bdushaw: Not a single one of your options reflects the crux of the proposal here, which is to include the "Trump's response was widely criticized for." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

DOJ authorization to investigate

Ref. these edits: [10], [11]. The info is newspaper-ish, but I edited instead of removing it. Barr isn't dumb, just unethical, placating the toddler-in-chief while maintaining plausible deniability with the two big ifs ("if there are any", "if true"). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Not really objecting to these recent edits, but noting my edits just prior to these were attempting an organization like (a) legal maneuvers (shenanigans), then (b) using the power of the federal government by blocking the transition and bringing the DOJ in on the action. (b) likely has other elements yet to appear; the news that Trump invited Michigan GOP to the whitehouse was interesting. With time, an optimal organization will likely be apparent. Bdushaw (talk) 09:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

5.7 COVID-19 Pandemic

The first sentence of the COVID-19 Pandemic section says, "In December 2019, the pandemic of COVID-19 coronavirus erupted in Wuhan, China; the virus spread worldwide within weeks." In December 2019, COVID-19 was not a pandemic; rather, as explained later in the section, it was classified as a pandemic on March 11, 2020. I suggest changing it to "In December 2019, the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus erupted in Wuhan, China; the virus spread worldwide within weeks." Note that I said SARS-CoV-2, as this is the virus, while COVID-19 is the disease it causes. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Bdushaw (talk) 09:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Photo of Stormy Daniels

What is this adding to the article? Yes, there's that whole scandal, but why the photo? Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Entirely decorative, and if a reader wants to know what Stormy Daniels looks/looked like, that information is but one click away. That's why we have wikilinks. Removed. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's decorative, but it is certainly UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 18:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

But I like Stormy Daniels... Bdushaw (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

So did Trump. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with SPECIFICO...its UNUDE. (stopping now...) Bdushaw (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Fine. Click on the link to Stormy Daniels in that section. Voilà. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Border Wall Funding

At the beginning of "2018-2019 federal government shutdown," it says that Trump wanted 5.6 billion dollars in federal funds for the border wall. At the beginning of "National emergency regarding the southern border," it says he wanted 5.7 billion dollars. Both should say 5.7 billion dollars. I have looked at other sources and have confirmed that it was 5.7 billion, but the CNBC source that is cited for the second number is fine, I think. The NYT article that the first number (5.6 billion) is attributed to takes a quote from Trump where he said that he was asking for 5.6 billion dollars. The White House officially asked Congress for 5.7 billion dollars, however. If you would like another source, here it is: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/06/trump-emergency-border-wall-government-shutdown-1082712. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 02:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Great. What are you proposing? Mgasparin (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Trump demanded 5.6 billions (NYT article) in a cabinet meeting on January 1, 2019. (Here's another source on that "Freewheeling and Mostly Fact-Free Cabinet Meeting.") On January 6, the WH "officially asked" (whatever that means - "we hereby ask?") for 5.7 billion dollars (Politico). The Politico article is about the wall while the section is about the government shutdown. Since a lot of the presidency content will probably be cut once Trump is safely out of office (and considering that Trump got neither 5.6 nor 5.7 billion, I'd suggest leaving the sentence as is. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The presidency content will probably be cut, but will the longest government shutdown in the history of the country be cut? I doubt it. I think we should replace the 5.6 with 5.7 and just keep the CNBC article, not the NYT article. It is trivial, but accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrytzkalmyr (talk • contribs) 15:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Trump goes on a firing spree

Should we add a sentence to the "2020 election" section about how, following the election, Trump fired multiple administration officials, sometimes replacing them with Trump loyalists? "Over the past week, President Trump has axed his defense secretary and other top Pentagon aides, his second-in-command at the U.S. Agency for International Development, two top Homeland Security officials, a senior climate scientist and the leader of the agency that safeguards nuclear weapons."[12]. "The Trump administration has carried out sweeping changes atop the Defense Department's civilian leadership structure, removing several of its most senior officials and replacing them with perceived loyalists to the President. The flurry of changes, announced by the Department of Defense in a statement roughly 24 hours after President Donald Trump fired Defense Secretary Mark Esper, has put officials inside the Pentagon on edge and fueled a growing sense of alarm among military and civilian officials, who are concerned about what could come next. Four senior civilian officials have been fired or have resigned since Monday, including Esper, his chief of staff and the top officials overseeing policy and intelligence. They were replaced by perceived Trump loyalists, including a controversial figure who promoted fringe conspiracy theories and called former President Barack Obama a terrorist."[13] -- MelanieN (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, some coverage of this is called for. Neutrality^talk 21:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Is it in the Presidency article, or one of the other sub-articles? That should be prerequisite to consideration here. See WP:SYNC. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'll see about adding something to some of the sub-articles before proposing it here. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Just to note that I still intend to do this but it's been slow going due to RL issues. I'll get it done soon. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The word "current"

Buried in the RfC is the phrase "the current president." This directly contradicts WP:DATED, which disallows terms like "current," "recent" and "now." Everything in Wikipedia is presumed to be current. We don't say, for example, that, "The Good Doctor is a current American medical drama series."

I understand my edit was reverted because "current" was included among a myriad of other points in multi-pronged RfC. But it's still non-MOS and it hardly seems controversial or contentious to remove that word. The phrase "Donald Trump is the US president" is exactly the same as "Donald Trump is the current US president." The very word "is" indicates "current".--Tenebrae (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Please read the first five words of the guideline you cite. In any case, that sentence will be changing soon enough anyway. We've lived with any "error" there for this long, we'll survive until January 20. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I did: "Except on pages updated regularly" followed by a link to the Current Events portal. Virtually every page of a popular celebrity is "updated regularly" — the link to the Current Events portal shows that the vague term "updated regularly" refers to current events and not biographies.

Here's the rest of it, detailing the spirit of the rule, which is that everything in Wikipedia is current unless otherwise noted:

...terms such as now, currently, to date, so far, soon, and recently should usually be avoided in favor of phrases such as during the 1990s, since 2010, and in August 1969. For current and future events, use phrases like as of November 2020 or since the beginning of 2020 to signal the time-dependence of the information....

--Tenebrae (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that "45th and current POTUS" is redundant, considering all former presidents are mentioned as presidenting in the past tense. But mine has proven to be the minority view thus far. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Well we did have the date "January 20, 2017", which negates usage of "current". But, a small group of editors deleted it months ago. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Coup suggestion

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

---

Hello! in the 2020 Presidential election section of the article after the sentence "In what The New York Times called an "extraordinary breach of presidential decorum" I would like to add the following sentence "Some media outlets have likened the President's post-election actions to a mild coup d'etat attempt"(it doesn't have to be after that particular sentence but it should be in that section) these are my references https://globalnews.ca/news/7485331/donald-trump-election-loss-claims/ https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/11/trump-failed-coup-danger.html Black roses124 (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! First, edit requests are only for uncontroversial changes. Aside from things like spelling and grammar, very little in this article is uncontroversial. Edit requests are specifically not for things that might need discussion. Therefore I am converting this edit request to a discussion by changing the heading and removing the edit request template. In the future please use the "New section" link at the top of this page for anything like this.

Second, any use of the word "coup" is already under discussion at #Attempted Coup By Experts?, above. Therefore this thread would only serve to split the discussion, which is never a good idea, and I'm closing as duplicate. Please participate in the existing discussion if you wish. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:49, 27 November 2020 (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.

Did the DNC write this page?

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

---

The whole page is so outrageously biased and flat out dishonest that I had to look twice to make sure this was really Wiki and not a spoof page.

I have taken the liberty of publishing the Talk link on numerous social media outlets so others can see exactly what you people do here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.38.245 (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2020 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 November 2020

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

---

Please remove the bias and outright lies from this page. The whole opinion piece before the contents needs to be reviewed and much of it deleted as untrue. Your bias is GLARING and if you want to continue to enjoy a reputation for solid information you'll reconsider your political agenda and leave it out of your pages. 72.181.38.245 (talk) 05:55, 28 November 2020 (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. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:02, 28 November 2020 (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.

Biased

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

---

In my opinion, this article is biased. There are comments that have been made on this page that support me. There is a whole section of false statements that Donald Trump has made, why not have a whole section of true statements that he has made? It is one-sided. This is blatant bias, and there should be a review of some sort, bearing in mind, others on this talk page ave highlighted bias and the fact that Trump is a very significant figure, this should be addressed. DukeBiggie1 (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Having an entire section dedicated to his truthful statements would sure be easier to curate since it would only be like one line...Praxidicae (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. There is a fairly continuous stream of "comments that support [you]" (see this page's archives), but that doesn't make them correct or meaningful in the absence of Wikipedia policy knowledge. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: Hardly true, indeed, I would question why mail-in ballots in relation to Trump are discussed under false statements, as there have been credible allegations of electoral fraud. DukeBiggie1 (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Thank you for your response. Although, the quantity of comments in support of my view that there is bias does not in itself give one's argument merit, the fact that these arguments are being put aside quite quickly is concerning. Wikipedia's intention is to be neutral and this does not mean positives and negatives have to be equal, there is a reasonable expectation that an article will not be overly one-sided in this regard, particularly, when there is no shortage of evidence to the contrary. This article is clearly left-wing and it is a shame by virtue of this bias that people with different political views are discouraged to read this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DukeBiggie1 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

This article is clearly left-wing - If so, it's because reliable sources are left-wing, and that's Wikipedia policy, as indicated on the "Response" page I linked for you above. Did you read it? If you read it, did you take some time to actually think about it? Did you read the NPOV policy page? Did you read any of the past discussions about this on this page? The problem with all such complaints like yours is that they arrive with a preconceived mind-set about bias and no amount of reasoning or education can change it. Many of the regulars at this article, including me, are weary of spending our unpaid volunteer time trying to reason with people who are dead-set on a particular viewpoint, and who are not particularly interested in Wikipedia policy. That's why arguments are being put aside quite quickly.

As stated on the "Response" page, you are free to make specific, policy-based suggestions for improvement to this article, but general complaints about bias are not useful. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this article is written with bias against the subject. While it's a fact that the subject has made false statements to an extraordinary degree, this is hardly something he is particularly notable for. Even without considering any potential bias, this section should be reduced to a few sentences within the section about his public image. Saying things like "credible allegations of election fraud" only serve to make claims of bias seem like Trump supporters who primarily wish that online sources seem more favourable to Trump than they are. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: I do agree with you approach on the way forward. In addition, I have highlighted the case of bias to the neutral points of view noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DukeBiggie1 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

There is a section on his falsehoods because he has told more of them than any public figure in anyone’s living memory, and likely in all American history, and maybe even in modern world history, and to deny this is to be stunningly ignorant or hyperpartisan, or both. It is a core character trait that distinguishes him from all other current or historical public figures who can be named, and this objective observation has nothing to do with politics. It. Is. Reality. soibangla (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

That is a POV statement, devoid of any reference to sources, and has no more place in a bias discussion than the OP's comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: You have been rude and condescending. I have read Wikipedia policy and the article you suggested. You would use the Wikipedia policy to justify murder hoping no one reads it. You put the arguments for bias aside quickly not because they lack merit but because they hold merit. One seems to be under the impression if someone does not agree that you ask a series of condescending questions and raise yourself upon a pedestal. You have a preconceived mind, furthermore, you are not different to any other Wikipedia editor in giving up time without being paid. You refuse evidence when it is handed to you on a plate countering it with your supposed superior knowledge. DukeBiggie1 (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Due to the sheer volume of falsehoods, it is impossible for me to document in this discussion the evidence/proof of my statement, yet it is abundantly documented throughout numerous Wikipedia articles and well beyond, and anyone who cannot acknowledge this has, at minimum, not been paying attention. soibangla (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• I think this is a great opportunity to quote something said by one of our esteemed fellow editors in a similar context some time ago:

  The so-called "liberal media" is biased towards reality, and the alt-right is biased towards anything that supports their ideology, which is, generally speaking, not reality-based. We are an encyclopedia, therefore we reflect reality, not any ideology. The right sees this and says "Ah, see, Wikipedia is supporting what the liberal media says, therefore Wikipedia is biased towards the left," but that's only because they see things through the filter of their POV, while we do our very best not to be biased towards anything except what is real and verifiable. The alt-right media are not, for the most part, reliable sources, since they have been shown to have been wrong again and again and again, and have an overall tendency to report whatever they believe, regardless of its relationship to reality. Thus we are forced to use reality-based media, which the alt-right sees as liberal or "leftist", which is actually ridiculous, since no mainstream American media outlet is anywhere near being left-wing -- but, then, the alt-right makes no differentiation between "liberal" and "leftist".

  In short, it is wrong to point the finger at Wikipedia as being the genesis of the problem, which originates in the minds of the ideologues of the right. There is no "leftist view" to Wikipedia, that's an artifact totally created in the perceptions of rightists. Our viewpoint is centrist, just as that of the "liberal media" is. The fault is not in us, it is in those who cannot differentiate their ideology from reality.

EEng 23:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so now we've segued from unspecific, policy-free talk about bias at this article to a discussion about Wikipedia bias in general. Neither belongs on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be an issue that arises frequently here, and it occurred to me that the above might be a resource editors could use in responding to the perennial misguided complaints. EEng 00:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the minds of the people making the perennial complaints. They are not going to be moved one centimeter by talk like that, any more than they are moved by New York Times op-eds or Lawrence O'Donnell opinion speeches on MSNBC. Their response to they see things through the filter of their POV: "And you don't? Kindly dismount your high horse, sir." Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias is the best we can do and the best we should try to do on this particular page, and it lets the reader know they can raise the issue at VPP if they care to try. If they go there, you and BMK are welcome to try to convince them with essays like that. This is not the place. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Kindly dismount your high horse, sir. EEng 00:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

If we're trading empty one-liners, I'll state that I don't own a horse. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Typical liberal prevarication. You might have hired one for the occasion. EEng 01:36, 29 November 2020 (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.

Biased Last Paragraph In Intro Section

The last paragraph in the intro section seems very controversial, biased, and in an accusing tone. My personal thoughts (non favorable) to the subject aside Wikipedia should be based on facts and not bias one way or the other. I am requesting either that the paragraph is taken out completely or that it is completely rewritten to take the accusations away and report on the facts. 67.80.108.160 (talk) 08:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The tone of that paragraph is based on the sources you can find under the Donald_Trump#COVID-19_pandemic section. The facts we present are always represented by reliable sources, as is the case here. — Czello 08:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I have removed "specious" as a description of the legal challenges to the election in this paragraph. Some of the legal challenges have been successful. And the fact that a challenge fails doesn't make it "specious".--Jack Upland (talk) 09:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

As others have said we go with RS, see wp:or. not what we think.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

RS have widely called his claims and "challenges", whether "legal" or on Twitter, baseless[14][15], or used similar descriptions (e.g. "dead on arrival", "no merit",[16], "frivolous"[17]), so that's what we go with. It is uncontroversial that the lawsuits are "baseless" or "frivolous". --Tataral (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually many of Trump's claims have at least some basis, why did Joe Biden suddenly get a bunch of votes overnight, why did (I think) Michigan not send in the current tally of votes, and also, why is it that when Trump won the last presidential election(incorrect:last year) the Democrats started trying(and failing) to impeach him, but when Joe Biden wins and suspicious things are going on and the Republicans try to investigate, the Democrats say that they're just being sore losers. to be clear I agree with User:67.80.108.160. Bobby Neir (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Not the place for this discussion, but Biden didn't "suddenly get a lot of votes overnight." Votes were counted and the results of the counts were released in batches over several days. Both candidates received votes in batches that were counted. It so happened that mail-in ballots, especially from areas of dense populations (like cities) were counted after in-person ballots, and the portion of those votes going to Biden happened to be higher than the portion of those votes going to Trump. They were counted, not found, not gotten, counted. I have no idea what you are talking about with Michigan. Trump was not on the ballot last year, so did not win last year. He was successfully impeached (that is done in the House), he was not removed, nor does that have any bearing on the 2020 election or the 2016 election. A removal of Trump from office would not invalidate or reverse the 2016 election. Hillary Clinton would not have taken office if Trump had been removed, Mike Pence would have taken office, you know, because Trump/Pence won the election in 2016. Impeachment does not overturn an election. In fact, by going through the motions of impeachment rather than challenging an election, one explicitly has to accept the results of said election. You can't impeach someone who didn't win the election. What suspicious things? You've definitely not presented any here, and neither has any been presented in court. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Whoops, I meant last presidential election not last year's election, sorry about that. though another suspicious thing that I forgot to mention was the fact that many, I don't know the exact number, ballots were returned on behalf of dead people, here's a link to a list by Fleccas Talks: https://controlc.com/c17e91ba and here is a link to the video about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK21F1b5ihc&feature=emb_logo Bobby Neir (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Those do not come anywhere near the standards of reliable sources. No evidence of large numbers of dead people voting or ballots from dead people has been found. In fact, some of the widely publicized accusations have turned out to be 100% false, such as https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/18/technology/dead-voters-false-claims.html https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9724944862 --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Arab–Israeli normalization agreements

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

---

Should the text below be added under the "Foreign policy" section? Please refer to article's history and the above talk-page section for details.

On August 13, 2020, Trump announced that the United Arab Emirates and Israel were to normalize relations under the Israel–United Arab Emirates normalization agreement. The normalization agreement between Bahrain and Israel was announced by Trump on September 11, 2020. On October 23, 2020, Trump announced that Sudan will start to normalize ties with Israel, making it the third Arab state to do so as part of the Trump administration-brokered Abraham Accords.

References

-- Tobby72 (talk) 11:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) Yes per the sources presented appears WP:DUE as it significant foreign policy event --Shrike (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
• No The article is supposed to be about the man, something at this level of detail might be DUE in Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. It is not really the case, afaics, that the Sudan arrangement, whatever it is, is "part of" the Abraham Accords although I suppose it could be argued that is a consequence of them. It doesn't mention the Accords in the joint statement nor in most of the sources I have seen and it seems to be something being put about by a Trump aide, even the given VoA source doesn't say that, it says that UAE and Bahrain signed the Accords, which is my understanding as well. Selfstudier (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - the man himself was present and a large part of the negotiations. The man himself was photographed with the other leaders when they announced the "deals". It's completely due weight to include how he is the only president of the US since the formation of Israel to broker at least three separate successful (i.e. productive towards a goal of peace/relations) discussions between Israel and Arab nations. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

  Berchanhimez, to be fair, this was always easy, as long as everyone was prepared to throw the Palestinians under the bus. That's what changed from every previous administration. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

  One can argue that the Palestinians threw themselves under the bus Shrike (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

  To expand on my own comment with some more information/sourcing: this may prove to be the most significant foreign policy achievement of his first term (from this article by a left-leaning news source). I wouldn't call "the most significant foreign policy achievement of his first term" something that's insignificant. Here's the BBC explaining why they matter, which is separate from the BBC article Tobby included in the RFC to begin with. The NYT even quotes Nancy Pelosi herself as saying it was "an important day". The biographies of many other people include their greatest achievements, and there's a consensus in the news media that this may be the best foreign policy achievement during his time in office - that is certainly biographically significant more so than the rest of that section now. The section does quite a thorough job of covering his "negative" achievements in foreign policy (ex: withdrawal from treaties, etc) - but per WP:DUE it must also cover his positive policy achievements such as this - especially when the news considers it almost unanimously the "most positive" thing he's done in his term in office. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• No - a relatively insignificant foreign policy success that has almost zero effect on Trump's life. Belongs in Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - obviously belong, just as other important peace deals are discussed in the articles of presidents involved. (I must also express my incredulity at the comment above. During 70 years, Israel has signed five peace treaties with Arab states; three out of five have come about this year. Calling that a "relatively insignificant foreign policy" is just nonsensical). Jeppiz (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

  "Calling that a "relatively insignificant foreign policy" is just nonsensical." None of these countries where geopolitical adversaries of Israel. If Trump had brokered a peace deal between Israel and Syria, for example, that would be meaningful. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

  You are wrong. According to The Times of Israel, "In a televised address Saturday on the new Israeli-Sudanese normalization deal, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hinted that Israel carried out bombing raids in Sudan several years ago to stop Iran from smuggling weapons to Hamas via the African nation. ... Noting the historic significance of Friday’s breakthrough, Netanyahu stressed that Sudan was once an enemy state that fought against Israel in 1948. In 1967 it hosted the Arab League summit in which the so-called “3 No’s” were announced, he added: No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel and no negotiations with Israel. ... He thanked "President Trump and his team above all — together with him we are changing history." The new accords were being reached "despite all the experts and commentators who said it was impossible," he said." -- Tobby72 (talk) 07:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

  Netanyahu will say almost anything to talk up Trump's successes because it benefits him politically, so he's not a reliable source for this sort of thing. Again, this is simply not biographically significant. It should be in the foreign policy article, not the BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• No amount of guffawing by the article's subject would make this especially relevant to the article, and these agreements are not significant either. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes given the gravity of the event in terms of geopolitical realities and related to his first term, as noted by User:Berchanhimez above. Arab states, even if not traditional "enemies" of Israel, granting it recognition is inherently notable given the history there. Also, any state shifting diplomatic recognition in itself is arguably notable insofar as it entails a major change in relations between one state and another. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The foreign policy events are significant, but this biography of Trump is not the place to include the statement. If Trump had made the achievements a major factor of his campaigns and administration - if he had personally argued for them, or if he had personally put his efforts and political capital on the line for them, perhaps inclusion would be warranted (if so, suggest rewording to be more Trump-centric). In addition, there has been quite a lot of discussion of restructuring the article to shorten it (for the same reason), with a reduction of the entire foreign policy section back to a summary paragraph or two. Any addition now would likely just be removed, along with a lot of other subsections, in a month or so. Presidency of Donald Trump is the more appropriate article for presidential topics not directly Trump related. Bdushaw (talk) 09:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Why are Trump's achievements inappropriate for his biographical article, but yet Barack Obama's foreign policy achievements are not inappropriate for his, or George W. Bush's for his... keeping in mind both of those (and many other presidents') articles are either Good or Featured status? He did put his own political capital on the line and he did personally mediate between at least the leaders themselves - hence why even "liberal" media such as Vox are calling it significant for him personally. I agree the wording could be improved - but the correct thing to do then is to help improve it, not argue against inclusion. Would you be okay with the following? On August 13, 2020, Trump and the leaders of the United Arab Emirates and Israel announced they had reached an agreement to normalize diplomatic relations under the Israel–United Arab Emirates normalization agreement. This was followed by a similar agreement between Bahrain and Israel, announced by Trump on September 11, 2020. On October 23, 2020, Trump announced that Sudan will start to normalize ties with Israel, making it the third Arab state to do so as part of the Abraham Accords, which have been called potentially the most significant foreign policy achievement of Trump during his four year term as president. - with the same citations already given in the original RFC and in my reply above (specifically citing the last part (most significant) to Vox)? If people think my wording is an improvement please feel free to do what you will with it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
    • The content of an article is not decided on the basis of the content of an entirely different article. Again, this will have ZERO biographical impact, so it doesn't belong in the biography. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
      • Per the precedent of past presidents, which does impact the decision here, a president's foreign policy achievements are considered "biographically important". If you don't agree, that's fine, but you should be trying to get the foreign policy impacts removed from all other articles as well. Otherwise, your opposition here is just not liking that Trump's article could have something slightly positive in it? I note that you don't disagree with the citations that I brought up that call it the "most significant" thing Trump's done for foreign policy as president? You seem to be nitpicking your disagreement and ignoring the rest of what people have said. Regardless, I think it's clear you're doing that, so I'll just let whoever closes this do what they will with your non-policy-based and precedent-ignoring disagreement. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
        • Disagree. Trump's life has not been like Bush's life and certainly not like Obama's life, from the standpoint of notability for Wikipedia's purposes. Please cite the Wikipedia policy that the BLPs about very different people should be treated the same in this way. And please review WP:AGF and keep your suspicions to yourself until you have tangible evidence to back them up. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
          • You have said nothing about why WP:DUE and WP:SS do not apply to Mr. Trump other than "his life is different than other presidents". That is not an argument against inclusion of this material which due weight and summary style mandate given the other information currently in this article. This has been called by reliable sources the "most significant" achievement of his time in office and merits inclusion as such per DUE and SS. I'm happy to wait for others to opine, but I will point out again that neither Mandruss or Scjessey have offered any policy based argument as to why DUE and SS do not apply here, nor have they even acknowledged that reliable sources call this the "most significant" thing he's done in office. I'll let other people opine here, but I hope whoever closes/acts on this RfC will note that these responses in this thread have ignored the policy-based arguments myself and others have brought up and ignored what reliable sources say to put their own opinion as to its significance into the discussion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
            • You are confusing biographical significance and general significance. Trump's foreign policy activities will have no discernable impact on Trump's life or presidency, which means they are biographically insignificant. The policy-based argument that you seek is WP:UNDUE and WP:SS, in that including this material would violate both. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
            • given the other information currently in this article. And what if I also oppose much of that other information, for the same reason? Should I remain silent and surrender to that slippery slope? I disagree that DUE and SS mandate any such thing – I dearly wish policy were so clear, with nice bright lines for us to follow – but I'm prepared to accept the judgment of whoever closes/acts on this RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
• No and I can't say it any better than Bdushaw did. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC) (Now abstaining after subsequent discussion.) ―Mandruss ☎ 12:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
• No, as foreign policy has not been a central or important aspect of the Trump administrant, this has no bearing on his personal biography, esp. as we continuously speak about article length and how to trim. Mention in Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. ValarianB (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
• No - Presidency of Donald Trump, Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration, United Arab Emirates–United States relations, Benjamin Netanyahu, etc. are all more suitable for this content; this is probably not in the top 5 most important foreign policy aspects of his presidency. It also doesn't really represent any shift in U.S. policy, balances of power, etc. It is far less significant than, for instance, the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement, the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the increased tension with European allies/NATO, the deal with the Taliban, the failed North Korea talks, etc., all of which represented a major shift/development in U.S. policy. Neutrality^talk 16:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

  You are wrong. Asia Times: "Aside from the US electoral aims, the agreement has geopolitical ramifications, most notably furthering the already significant isolation of Iran in the region. ... This agreement and the other recent ones undermine the now defunct Arab consensus that normalization cannot occur until there is an independent Palestinian state. ... The Sudan-Israel agreement is thus not only a triumph for Israeli foreign policy but for the American camp. While the UAE and Bahrain agreements only cemented already existing foreign policy orientation, the deal with Khartoum marks a new direction for a country of 40 million and a step away from a dark past."

  Joe Biden: "The UAE’s offer to publicly recognize the State of Israel is a welcome, brave, and badly-needed act of statesmanship ... A Biden-Harris Administration will seek to build on this progress, and will challenge all the nations of the region to keep pace."

• Tobby72, **Yes** - This is a historically significant event with plenty of coverage and deserves to be in the main article. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 19:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

References

• -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  I don't see the word "Trump" in any of that. I'm hard pressed to imagine Trump doing any of the diplomatic negotiation required, since Trump is not a diplomat or a statesman. Did Trump actively encourage the State Department to pursue this agreement? AFAIK he allowed it to happen, which meant doing nothing (not all foreign policy initiative starts at the top). Feel free to quote sources that contradict me. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  Reuters: "President Donald Trump on Thursday managed to pull off a rare victory for U.S. diplomacy in the Middle East ahead of his Nov. 3 re-election bid by helping to broker a deal between American allies Israel and the United Arab Emirates."

  Deutsche Welle: "Trump announced the agreement on Friday, following a three-way phone call he had with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Bahrain's King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa. ... The announcement comes after two weeks of intense lobbying on the part of the Trump Administration, particularly the president's son-in-law and senior advisor Jared Kushner and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, both of whom personally visited the king and crown prince of Bahrain, urging them to open full diplomatic relations with Israel."

  BBC News: "This is a diplomatic achievement for President Trump and for his son-in-law Jared Kushner, who largely brokered the agreements with Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates."

  The Denver Post: "The ceremony follows months of intricate diplomacy headed by Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, and the president’s envoy for international negotiations, Avi Berkowitz."

  The Times of Israel: "Trump announced the Israel-Sudan deal on Friday at the White House in a call with Netanyahu and Sudan’s leaders. ... Trump earlier on Friday signed a waiver to remove Khartoum from the State Department’s blacklist of state terror sponsors." -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  That's enough to make me withdraw my opposition, and I'm striking my !vote. Not enough to earn my support, as I now feel the pro and con arguments are roughly equal in strength. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  The article you cited from the Asia Times is an opinion piece, and it refers to the moves "furthering the already significant isolation of Iran" - i.e., as I said above, these moves fit into a wider theme, and are neither a major shift in U.S. policy nor a significant balances of power shift. If Trump brokered some sort of agreement between Turkey and Syria, or between the Saudis and the Iranians, or between warring Libyan factions, then I would be the first one to support inclusion in this article. This is not at this level. Neutrality^talk 14:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  Trump brokered peace agreement between Israel and Sudan. It fought in wars against Israel in 1948 and 1967. -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  That has nothing to do with my comment above: "neither a major shift in U.S. policy nor a significant balances of power shift." Neutrality^talk 17:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  USA Today: "It comes days after Trump announced he would take Sudan off the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism – a pivotal move that will help end Sudan's financial isolation and bolster its transition from dictatorship to democracy. ... The Trump administration said under the new agreement, the U.S. would also work with Sudan to help ease its debt burden and become a part of the broader international community." -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, it's important to Sudan and Sudanese-U.S. relations. That's not the same thing as balance of power shift. Neutrality^talk 18:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• No, put it in Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration instead per others opposing the change. FreeMediaKid! 22:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
• No. Belongs in the off-shoot articles. Due to size constraints, not every action taken by the administration can be mentioned in the main Trump bio. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes per Berchanhimez. This has been called by reliable sources the "most significant" foreign policy achievement of his time in office. Presidents have more power in foreign affairs than in domestic policy so Trump's most significant achievement in foreign policy should definitely be included in the article. Let's at least be consistent with Barack Obama's article. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  The question is whether the WP:WEIGHT of mainstream RS have called this "most significant". I see no references or analysis from any participant here that supports that proposition. Even remotely. c.f. North Korea, Saudi, Russia, China... etc. SPECIFICO talk 13:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  Closing admin note: Please note that Tobby72 is the proposer of this RfC, and has now also voted "yes" (and "per another user", oddly) above. ValarianB (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding: All editors (including IP users) are welcome to respond to any RfC. Try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and civil, and assume good faith of other editors' actions. -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• No, per my comment to OP directly above. SPECIFICO talk 13:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Frankly, I am concerned wit the OP's zeal in framing this matter in the best light possible for the BLP subject. Note this edit to Political positions of Joe Biden, which lists only Trump by name, and the leaders of the UAE and Israel generically, followed by Biden praised the agreement as a "welcome, brave, and badly-needed act of statesmanship.", which to the quick glance makes it appear that Joe Biden is praising the only named person, Trump's, statesmanship. In reality, per the source, Biden was singling out the UAE directly, Today, Israel and the United Arab Emirates have taken a historic step to bridge the deep divides of the Middle East. The UAE’s offer to publicly recognize the State of Israel is a welcome, brave, and badly-needed act of statesmanship.. ValarianB (talk)

  Fortunately, on widely-followed articles, this sort of thing is quickly spotted and corrected. SPECIFICO talk 13:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  Note this edit to Political positions of Joe Biden. The US and Trump are NOT marginal facilitators. -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yes (with the caveat that this might be removed in further reductions of the section) the "Israel" section feels incomplete without some mention of this treaty. Reducing this to one sentence seems likely and appropriate if the section is reduced further. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes for now, as it is currently deemed by the sources to be one of the most significant and notable actions of Trump. Of course things can change so this might need looking at with whatever happens over the next 8 years. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• No: Not material to his life, this BLP is already full, belongs in presidency/foreign policy articles. soibangla (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Of course this belongs here. Its is one of the reasons he has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, which he won't get cause that committee only awards that to US Presidents who later cause the presenters a sense of buyers remorse[18]. But indeed, Trump's encouragement to one time foes to come to the table to work out peaceful resolutions on an international level is worth noting here and elsewhere.--MONGO (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "Its is one of the reasons he has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize" LOL no it isn't. He was nominated by the same whack job who did it last time before the agreement. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Guess you haven't been paying attention? [19] Looks like you're in violation of BLP by calling Christian Tybring-Gjedde a "whack job"?--MONGO (talk) 03:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• No (Summoned by bot) I'd expect this to find lodging in the Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration article, with a mention in Presidency of Donald Trump, as it is significant to his administration. Assorted articles exist to prevent any one of them from growing to an unwieldy length, which every Trump article has the potential for.Lindenfall (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes per all the above justifications. Additionally, it will be significantly more important once Saudi Arabia signs the peace deal. [20] Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 06:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

  According to the source you cited, that's not very likely. Saudia Arabia's top diplomat on Thursday called for direct peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, while again suggesting the kingdom won't normalize ties with the Jewish state until the decades-old conflict is resolved. In an interview with a US-based think tank, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud underlined the kingdom’s support for the Arab Peace Initiative, which sees a Palestinian state as a prerequisite to rapprochement between Israel and the Arab world. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• No this belongs in "Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration." Bahar1397 (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• No. RS haven't actually reported that diplomatic relations have been established between Israel and UAE or Bahrain, just that they would be if Israel stops the annexation of the West Bank (which Israel has merely suspended) and if the UAE gets to buy F-35s (which Israel opposes, last I heard). So, two big ifs. Sudan is another big if since the current transitional government, which wanted to get off the terrorism list, is unelected, and the Sudanese public [is] largely opposed to normalization of ties with Israel. Trump announcements "that XYZ were to/ will start to" are not significant enough events in Trump's biography unless RS report that these "deals" led to peace in the Middle East, e.g. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC) 21:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk)
• Yes - while obviously it should have more detail in the relevant article, it has a lot of coverage and clearly does meet DUE. I am distinctly concerned by the people saying "foreign affairs isn't important to Trump, so it doesn't warrant inclusion. That screams non-neutrality. It's bound up with both his presidency and that is bound up with him. If someone wants to recommend an even more slimmed down version, I'd happily consider it, but it should be included. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. This is a peculiar RfC - it requests a consensus on a particular statement on a particular topic of foreign policy, and one that is of interest to the OP. It is peculiar because this is a hodge-podge way of formulating an article - are we to have an RfC on every specific foreign policy topic that is of interest to someone? A more constructive approach might be to postulate that we need to shorten the foreign policy section (of this biography) to be a few key paragraphs on Trump's main aims and efforts, then ask for the top 3-5 topics, say, that are particularly relevant and could be summarized in a sentence or two. If this RfC statement is approved, for example, does that mean it becomes an immovable boulder in the foreign policy section, such that when someone cleans up that section (as we've discussed, so it is likely to happen), the text in question would have to awkwardly remain? Is this middle east result the most important foreign policy accomplishment by Trump (his specific contributions to it still seem minimal to me)? Bdushaw (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes include it as the most historic agreements brokered since camp David accords. It should be in the body and mentioned in the lead like Jimmy Carter. ConstantPlancks (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
• Yes based on precedent and WP:NPOV. See Jimmy Carter (Camp David Accords) and Bill Clinton (Oslo Accords and Israel–Jordan peace treaty) Adoring nanny (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Absolutely Yes. Our "Foreign policy" section of this article already includes much more detail about much less significant developments. Unless there is a massive cleanout of this section, which does not currently appear likely, the above paragraph should be included. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

  The vast bulk of the foreign policy stuff should come out, and agreements to formalize what had been quiet friendly relations for many years certainly don’t rank as noteworthy here, especially considering how Trump did a 180 on the Kushner plan announced in January to get these agreements. These agreements were possible only in spite of Trump’s stated policy on West Bank annexation, rather than because of it. soibangla (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

  While you (and everyone) are free to your opinion, on Wikipedia we go based on reliable sources - at least one of which has blatantly called it the "most significant" thing Trump's done. If this is not present, then per due weight anything that isn't directly called the "most significant" by reliable sources should also not be included. I agree that most stuff should come out - but if anything remains, then this must because it is covered immensely in reliable sources and has been called the "most significant" by at least one of them. Not to mention the word "significant" (sometimes with "very" or other words) is used often to discuss these developments. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

  It's not an opinion that the deal was made possible because Netanyahu suspended his longtime objective of annexing West Bank settlements, and the Kushner plan in January greenlighted the annexation, which was contrary to decades of American and international policy for a two-state solution. So by agreeing to this deal, the Trump administration reversed its stated policy of just months earlier. It's also not an opinion that Israel and UAE had "a robust diplomatic relationship that had long been one of the Middle East's worst-kept secrets." soibangla (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

  That's not what I was calling an opinion. Your opinion I was referring to was that it "do[esn't] rank as noteworthy" - which is countered by the fact that a majority of reliable sources call it "significant" or similar, and one even calls it the "most significant". I've seen no reasoning from anyone here as to why those reliable sources should be ignored or discounted. n.b. I fixed your comment for list-gap as well. Regardless, I think the best thing is to let the closer of this discussion evaluate whether the concerns about due weight are merited/valid or not based on the comments here, so I won't hammer it anymore in responses to you. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

If we're talking about significance, we should give more weight to his major initiatives that have not yielded results: China, DPRK and Iran. These are the three major policies that Trump pursued, but they didn't pan out, which created the need for the Israel/UAE deal to get some foreign policy points on the board in an election year. Not to mention Netanyahu's political motivations, but that's another topic. This deal put on paper realities that had existed for years. soibangla (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Note: I've changed the beginning of some comments to follow MOS:LISTGAP by changing beginning colons to beginning asterisks as per the beginning comments and the overwhelming majority of new-lines. This should not have any visual effect whatsoever, but improves the flow for users of accessibility devices/programs. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Yes but condensed. This material is sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion here but only in a condensed format. The UAE and Bahrain agreements can be easily consolidated into a single sentence. Sudan isn't noteworthy because, well, DJT announces lots of stuff that never comes to pass. R2 (bleep) 00:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Not as phrased. That Trump made certain announcements is verifiable enough, but runs foul of WP:NOTNEWS. If there's sourcing for Trump having played a role in the normalisation of diplomatic relationships between Israel and these Arab states & Sudan; then include a brief mention of that. - Ryk72 ^talk 05:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Yes – Those agreements are recognized as very significant developments towards peace in the Middle East, which has been a salient objective of the Trump administration ever since his election (and a stated goal of U.S. foreign policy for decades). Kushner brokered those deals at Trump's behest. Obviously we're not at the "ultimate deal" level he touted during his 2016 campaign, but that's not reason enough to dismiss those announcements as merely political fodder. I also believe this may be lead-worthy material, especially if/when a couple more countries sign up to normalizing relations with Israel. — JFG ^talk 07:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @JFG: Even if they are regarded as "very significant" towards Middle East peace (which they really aren't), they have almost ZERO impact on Trump's life. That should be reflected in this article. Any coverage here should be minimal, and there's no way in a million years it would make the lead. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
    • @Scjessey: RE they have almost ZERO impact on Trump's life.: Irrelevant. The vast majority of what is in our "presidency" section has zero impact on his life. Shall we remove our entire coverage of immigration? Of "energy and climate"? Of health care, gay rights, abortion? None of those things seem to impact him personally. Significant actions as president are always included in that president's biography. That's because they become part of the person's legacy. I agree it would not make the lead, but that's not what this discussion is about. This material is proposed to be added to the "Foreign policy" section of the text. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I just want to address some arguments that have been made recently. First of all there is very likely to be a significant reduction in the foreign policy content on this article anyway, so it's not particularly valid that this should be included because other stuff is. On reliable sources, there is a lack of attribution for this to Trump specifically. The balance of reliable sources shows that this belongs on Wikipedia, but not on the Donald Trump biography. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• No. In general I've yet to see the significance of these agreements be demonstrated, and as others have stated many of these countries already had ties to Israel and these were just formal announcements made before the election. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Significnt accomplishments such as these should be included Anon0098 (talk) 05:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Yes I believe coverage in RS as a significant area of Trump's foreign policy has been well-established at this point. I don't really understand arguments that this should be kept out because it does not pertain to his biography, considering every president has a Presidency section that will naturally cover aspects of their presidency – which are not necessarily related to their life per se. It doesn't look like it would have any more weight than anything else currently in the Foreign policy section, if that is the problem. Condensing the passage could be a viable option, but this topic merits at least a brief mention. NO MORE HEROES ⚘ TALK 07:08, 29 November 2020 (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.

5th paragraph biased?

I apologize if this was not the intent of the editor but the fifth paragraph on this subject seemed leaning towards the left, democratic side. It gave an opinion on how the President has been handling the COVID-19 pandemic, a very controversial subject within itself, especially when it comes to how the people in charge have been dealing with it. Many people have been arguing on the topic of how President Donald J. Trump has been handling this crisis, especially Red v. Blue. I just thought the paragraph could be a little more from a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swrld (talk • contribs) 15:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

We go with how RS (And specifically experts) frame it. Please present sources that would make this section more balanced.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)