This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I am comparing the Trump Britannica article with this one. Britannica tends to omit important controversies to make a concise article. It does include a detail, however, which I believe this article is sorely missing: why was Trump elected? The Britannica article summarizes it as follows: "his outsider status and political incorrectness proved popular with many voters," which is not terrible. Meanwhile, the closest this article gets to explaining Trump's popularity, is, "Trump's political positions and rhetoric were right-wing populist," and, "Trump's fame and provocative statements earned him an unprecedented amount of free media coverage, elevating his standing in the Republican primaries." It does not address the issue of why 46% of the electorate voted for him; why not far less? I propose this text, after some adjustment by others, be added to Election to the presidency:

Commentators credited his victory to voter dissatisfaction with both major candidates, his status as a political outsider, and his popularity among whites, who constituted a large part of the electorate in key swing states. [1] [2] [3] 2600:1700:1154:3500:54A3:E5DD:E73B:8E1C (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Adding a sentence similar to the Britannica one you highlight seems like an excellent suggestion to me. I haven't delved into the sources you've used, but the suggested wording seems like a good basis too. Jr8825 • Talk 09:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Not an improvement. You’re not proposing context, you’re proposing a conclusion, and I don’t see that there’s a consensus in reliable sources (historians, scholars, journalists) yet. Britannica is a different kind of encyclopedia, and their article on Trump is organized very differently from our scores of Trump articles (and the sentence you quote doesn’t say this is the reason he won). We have a section in this top bio on how he got elected with a link to the main article where you get a ton of details on electoral votes, voter demographics, battleground states, etc. NPR and Vox are sources from immediately after the 2016 election mentioning a number of reasons but they both boil down to the geography and math of the Electoral College … working to Trump’s benefit (citing Vox). The BBC source only mentions the 2016 election in one paragraph comparing 2016 and 2020, i.e., Trump won in 2016/lost in 2020partly because he was a norm-busting political outsider who was prepared to say what had previously been unsayable - they don’t mention any other contributing factor(s). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC) Clarifying: The cited sentence from Britannica doesn't say that "his outsider status and political incorrectness" were the reason Trump won, and it also doesn't mention that they proved unpopular with 2.8 million more voters than Trump got. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it is due to add explanations about why Trump won. As Vernon Bogdanor pointed out in one of his lectures, concentrating on minor aspects that might have tipped the scale, such as Russia, the emails or Clinton's unpopularity, ignores the broader issue of how someone like him even came close.[4] Goldwater and McGovern had obtained only about 35% of the vote when they ran. TFD (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not our job to "explain" Trump's popularity or why he was elected. It's our job to write "from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Here's CNN, also from 2016, with 24 reasons. Here's an in-depth Pew Research Center analysis from 2018 with demographic and political profiles of Clinton and Trump voters and eligible voters who did not vote. And in the end, it's back to the "bracing reminder that the presidency is won or lost in the states and not in the national popular vote. Donald Trump lost nationally by 2.9 million votes (2.1% of the total cast) while winning a comfortable Electoral College majority. Can he repeat this feat in 2020? Yes. Can he do it if he loses than [sic] national popular vote by a larger margin than four years ago? Probably not."(Brookings) 2.9 million more votes for the Democratic candidate weren't enough, it took a difference of 13 million to make up for the "geography and math of the Electoral College". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x The causes are complex, and deserve a longer treatment as another article has done, but just because something is complex does not mean Wikipedia cannot present it concisely, and in compliance with NPOV. It is the 10-year/20-year view. Imagine being a 10th grader in 2040 reading this article. She reads the section Election to the presidency and asks: "why would anyone vote for this guy?" She deserves a better, and neutrally presented, answer, and also directions to where to find more information. 2600:1700:1154:3500:BCFE:B0C6:D5E5:93A1 (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't entirely disagree but do you have a reliable source that you are summarizing (not Britannica)? Andre🚐 23:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

It’s a work in progress. I’m pretty sure the article the 10th grader will be reading in 2040—or even in 2025—will have been updated quite a bit from the current one. I wish we did have reliable sources with answers to—among other questions—why people voted for this guy but I don't think we do right now. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, it certainly is not our job to "explain" Trump's popularity. However, it is our job to cite expert opinion that explains his popularity. The Pew article incidentally does not explain why Trump was popular, it merely explains how various demographic groups voted for him. I doubt the CNN list of 24 theories, written immediately after the election by a reporter with a BA in journalism, meets rs.

Bogdanor is a political scientist and one of Britain's foremost constitutional experts. We should look at what the major views of actual experts are and report them.

Even if it were not policy, I respect the views of experts more than amateurs. That's why I support covid vaccination and other health measures. I hope I am not in a minority.

TFD (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

one of Britain's foremost constitutional experts - the U.S. declared independence from the British monarchy a long time ago :). Bogdanor’s WP page doesn’t indicate that he is an expert on the U.S., and none of the books he wrote and edited appear to be about the U.S. constitution, electoral system, or history. I don’t propose to use any of the sources the OP and me mentioned, I was just pointing out that six years after the 2016 election we’re still at the theories and opinions stage. What's the rush, and, for the purposes of this WP article, does it even matter what scholars, experts, journalists, pundits think were the reasons people voted for him? The answers Trump supporters gave Jordan Klepper are probably just as enlightening. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Quoting Frank Bruni: You’re ignoring the country’s frustrating ambiguities and ambivalences and the musty adage that on any given Tuesday, anything can happen. You’re insisting on epiphanies when enigmas are more common — and more durable. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Your argument that British political scientists cannot be taken seriously on U.S. politics is questionable. Will you make the point on evolution articles that since Darwin was British, the theory of evolution doesn't apply to the U.S.? Or perhaps you plan to remove any commentary by U.S. scholars on foreign countries or does American exceptionalism only work one way? TFD (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Analogy fails parallelism. SPECIFICO talk 22:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Not really convinced this is a good idea yet, so I have removed it. Thoughts? Zaathras (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Let's see what happens. The text is misleading anyway, because saying he is being investigated for violation of the Espionage Act, without elaboration, implies that he is being investigated for espionage. TFD (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Also agree. OK in the article text, but not in the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Too soon to know just now. Document in the body and let it unfold. We can reassess if there's charges. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree. If it winds up being the first highly visible (read:widely reported in reliable sources) step in an eventual criminal trial, I could see if being included in the lede, other than that, it's just another part of about a dozen investigations that are going on into the subject, which are already summed up in the lede. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Lets leave it until its all over so we can see what its significance is. Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it's much too early to know how significant this event will be. Probably it's not the raid itself but the case that the DoJ or whoever is going to compile or bring with the seized documents under the Espionage Act for the nuclear weapons stuff. So things take a bit of time to develop, if there is going to be an indictment or a grand jury - I think I read there is already a grand jury for this classified info. Too early to know for this. Andre🚐 13:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Again its "LEAD", NOT "Lede", unless you are British or something. "Lede" means something different unless we are talking spelling variation. Can we stick to calling it the "lead"? This concludes this public announcement, thank you.--Malerooster (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Lede is also used in American journalism so is valid as well. Andre🚐 13:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Zaathras (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  It actually originated among American journalists. Don't blame us for that monstrosity! Jr8825 • Talk 13:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Apparently it needs to be repeated, it's lead because it's not a lede, which is a term of journalism. WP is not a newspaper. SPECIFICO talk 14:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  I use lede to mean any introduction of an article. It originates in journalistic slang, and I know Wikipedia officially uses the "lead" spelling, but I've spent enough time at this point spelling it "lede" that it's hard to break the habit - and does it really matter tbh as long as we can understand each other? The original reason why typesetters coined the term was for disambiguation. Since lede is a unique construction that always refers to that, and lead can be the past tense of the verb to lead, or the metal lead, it's more confusing. Even if I tried consciously to correct for it, I'd probably slip up most of the time. Andre🚐 14:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry but I'm sticking with lede . ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree with keeping it out of the lead. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• UNDUE for the lead. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 16:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Hard to understand why it could be considered UNDUE. It is, however NOTNEWS and needs stable article content before going up top. SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see the raid itself ever needing to be mentioned per say. Maybe investigations or potential criminal/civil proceedings could be mentioned. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 16:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  That is repetition, not a reason. SPECIFICO talk 16:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I see that a lot of time was spent talking about leads and ledes. Something more important for this article is to talk about not calling it a raid just as Trump would like to see it framed as "the raid on my beautiful Mar-A-Lago."[5] It was not a raid, it was a court-authorized search of his residence. Gandydancer, Sectionworker (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

True you do raise a good point. Hi Gandydancer! Andre🚐 19:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not described as a raid in this article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 19:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Most RSs call it a raid, I don’t see how that’s a bias. Anon0098 (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Noop. SPECIFICO talk 19:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

"Most RS call it a raid" - that's right, they sure do and an experienced WP editor is well aware of how careful one must be about trusting early reporting on such explosive events because the media is more interested in being the FIRST! than in being accurate. Our article (as usual) sounds great. Looking at all the experienced editors that work on this article it is not at all surprising. Sectionworker (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

As previously mentioned the current article does not use the word “raid”, but in the future I still fail to see why this term should not be used. Early reporting does not mean bad reporting, and assuming so is OR, regardless of how experienced an editor is. At this point we’re arguing about a hypothetical on a hypothetical, so I’m more than happy to cross that bridge when we get to it. Cheers, Anon0098 (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see the problem with calling it a "raid". Many sources call it a raid, and "search" and "raid" aren't really that different.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

This is the abstract of J.M Davis "Raids - A Guide to Planning, Coordinating, and Executing Searches and Arrests", the book that provides specific guidelines for safe and successful police raids by local, State, and Federal law enforcement officers, along with a brief survey of current arrest, search, and seizure laws, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Does that sound like the FBI operation on August 8? Where does informing the Secret Service beforehand so that they can open the doors and informing the resident's lawyer when the search will begin fit in? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• I think it should be re-added to the lead. It's been the leading news story for a week. pbp 15:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• With respect, that is the worst reason to add it. This is a biography of a 70+ yr-old celebrity politician, we can't cram every news mention into the opener. Give it time and see what unfolds. Zaathras (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

It's been the leading news story for a week. Literally WP:RECENTISM bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Fits in with coordination so there wasn’t an open shoot-out, since the USSSS is part of the federal govt Anon0098 (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Recent news does not automatically need to teleport to the lead of this article. Wait a few weeks, minimum. If he isn't charged then it is simply another investigation, which he has plenty of. Bill Williams 15:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• This was a good removal; the FBI raid should not be mentioned in the lead at this time. I would support a mention if the raid resulted in criminal charges against Trump, but until then, leave it out. SkyWarrior 20:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yeah, gotta concur with most of the editors in this thread in supporting omitting it from the lede. Wait it out and see how it all goes down because it may end up being lede (lead?) worthy at some stage, but til then it should just remain in the article body. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
• Patience. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

It seems extraordinary that no mention is made of the Abraham Accords brokered under Trump's auspices, which unbiased commentators regard as the signature foreign policy achievement of his Presidency. I won't attempt to provide sources from the thousands available, nor do I wish to get involved in edit wars with those who have unlimited time to be contentious.

The section on NATO makes no reference to his demands that other members meet their budgetary commitments, a stance which has proved prescient. Again there will be ample source material. Chrismorey (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I've no objections to its being added. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed at least twice in the recent past. Please check the archives and see whether you have a new perspective on it. Note: This is Trump's biography, so although this content is covered in his Presidency and other articles, it may have little to do with Trump himself. We do have a photo of him with the crystal ball in Saudi Arabia. SPECIFICO talk 17:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Do you not think the more recent coverage of the Abraham Accords may make this time different than the former discussions? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the Abraham Accords deserve at least a mention at this point. The Israel paragraph is short, and it wouldn't hurt anything to add another sentence. The Abraham Accords have sustained coverage. It's been covered in the last few weeks in RS, see NPR, Independent, The Hill, and NPR again. If the Accords remain impactful and newsworthy 2 years later surely they deserve a sentence here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree if sources are covering it, it could be mentioned somewhere. Andrevan@ 18:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Not in this bio. It's already in the Presidency and Administration articles. Nobody has ever denied their existence or the fact that they have been reported in media. SPECIFICO talk 23:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Not everything about Donald Trump that has a source needs to be in the main Donald Trump article if there is a better article for covering it. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

About those two NPR sources: one is a July 9, 2022, article by NPR WH correspondent Khalid, the other one is the transcript of Khalid discussing the subject on NPR's morning edition on July 9, 2022, i.e., one source. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Numerous sources cover it and so should this article. There are many more minor foreign policy involvements that are covered in this article, but the Abraham Accords are major policy changes regarding the relations between the U.S., Israel, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. The resulting diplomatic ties turned into increased economic and military cooperation in the open, on the scale of billions of dollars. Bill Williams 21:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal A

There seems to be some support for mentioning the Abraham Accords. I've come up with this proposal:

In September 2020, Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, and two foreign ministers from the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain signed the Abraham Accords, which formally normalized relations between Israel and the two Arab states.^[1]

Any thoughts? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Seems alright to me. Andrevan@ 22:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I've BOLDly added the proposal. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

No objections from me. But I just might faint, if it's not reverted. GoodDay (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

We've been over this in the past and every time there was consensus against name-dropping the Abraham Accords in Trump's biography. Interestingly enough, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, you yourself denied a request for its addition not 3 months ago. Zaathras (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Zaathras: Yes I did. I've explained above the recent developments that have changed my mind. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The Abraham Accords were name dropped in the primetime Jan 6 hearings yesterday which may account for some of their perceived rise in notoriety. Andrevan@ 02:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I actually haven't hear about the Abraham Accords being mentioned in the Jan. 6 hearings. I was referring the recent sourcing indicating Biden has embraced them, which makes me believe they are having a somewhat significant influence on foreign affairs. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

None of these sources indicate it is of personal significance to the life and biography of Donald Trump, which if people here need reminding, the man has had a 5-6 decade lifetime of events which this article has to cover. In only 4 of those years was he president. The Abraham Accords, overblown as they actually are, are relevant to the Presidency of Donald Trump. Not Trump the man. Zaathras (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

No. Repeatedly rejected. Should go on the consensus list so we stop wasting time on this. SPECIFICO talk 02:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the prior conversation, but consensus can change. I'm not sure it has in this case. It seems that there are at least 2 editors trying to reopen this, but they have more work to do if they have new information to provide. It was also a Jeopardy! clue this week (not that that goes to notability of course). I understand the argument that it's about his presidency and not the man himself. On the other hand, he signed it, he claims to have some part in it (or Jared Kushner did perhaps? I heard Jared was in charge of that area?) If there were sources that provided more information about how much or little involvement Trump had diplomatically in what he or his biographers or historians claims is one of his key foreign policy achievements, that I think strengthens an argument for inclusion. So perhaps Iamreallygoodatcheckers may want to spend some time in the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Library or the actual library or just on Wikipedia itself reading, and come up with a concrete view as to the pivotal relevance if some does in fact start to emerge as we gain distance from the events. There's actually quite a lot of interesting information that I've read from Seth Abramson about the UAE that I think is sort of peripherally related but probably pretty WP:FRINGE. Still, I think, it's both a legitimate argument to discuss the supposed new information, and if consensus has not changed, move on.Andrevan@ 03:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. I would refer to the already established consensus on this and don't see that the conditions for the consensus changing are met.

The cited reliable sources usually refer to this as Trump-era and cast doubt as to the involvement of the Trump admin. It appears to me that this was pretty much a done deal and Trump admin simply adopted it. As such, this should not be placed on the Trump article but might be considered for the Trump presidency article. The only fact we can establish from those sources is that Trump aggressively touted this as his achievement. That alone, however, does not make it his achievement. There is no reason to include this in his personal bio. CrazyPredictor (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Are such accomplishments in the US presidential BLPs of Carter, Clinton, Bush (43), Obama & Biden? GoodDay (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes they are, their Israel policy is listed in detail in each of their articles. The Abraham Accords are much more significant than the only thing about Israel in this article, which is recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, versus four significant Middle Eastern and North African countries recognizing Israel as a fellow country. Morocco and Sudan should also be mentioned in addition to Bahrain and UAE, as adding one sentence of significant information is worth it. Bill Williams 01:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

If that is so? Why is Trump being singled out for exclusion of such an accomplishment? It's alright for them, but not for him? GoodDay (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Those other presidents mentioned had an active hand in the negotiations. Trump's hand made one phonecall and signed one piece of paper. Zaathras (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support inclusion per above rationales. Might need another RfC on this one Anon0098 (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  What rationale? Trump was not involved in this. Why put it in his life story?: SPECIFICO talk 01:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  An RFC? Sure go for it. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  I don't seeing this being resolved in this discussion. An RfC is likely warranted. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  We cannot launch an RfC every time an idea fails to change consensus. That is a really bad, wasteful use of editor resources. SPECIFICO talk 02:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  Frequent entries about the Abraham Accords are also wasteful of resources and time. When an issue is raised many times on this talk and people have conflicting opinions, the only way to settle the issue is often with a RfC. Otherwise, this issue will likely plague this talk forever. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  That's what I'm thinking Anon0098 (talk) 04:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  There's been no new information or any previously overlooked rationale for including such content in Trump's biography. Unsupportable, false, comparisons to, e.g. The Camp David Accords indicate there's scant understanding of history and the respective past-POTUS' involvements in the events that are noteworhty for their biographies. Trump was not involved in the "Abraham Accords" except to sign them in a photo-op. Now, we could include text about the many times he's created such photo-ops, the more notable of which include the St. Johns Church bible debacle and the racially-charged Escalator Descent. But we are not going to craft an encyclopedic narrative by adopting his media branding exercises as if they were personal achievements. The lack of fact and historical background in the comments thus far is glaring. In fact, the last-minute tag "Abraham Accords" was just about the only part of the event that Trump actually signed off on -- again in a marketing/branding capacity. There has been no consensus for this on any of the many previous discussions. And the WP:ONUS for inclusion of content is on the advocates. Articles will not be improved by forum-shopping and repetitive polls or even an RfC after recent failure to include. And there are many forum-shopping alternatives before an RfC, which is not even likely to address the key WP:WEIGHT issue. NPOVN would be one of them. SPECIFICO talk 12:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

If anyone does open an RFC on this matter? I'll attend. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. If anywhere, it would belong in Presidency of Donald Trump, and that article says in the lead that The administration ... brokered the Abraham Accords. It doesn't mention the signing ceremony at all. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  In that article, see the section Presidency_of_Donald_Trump#Israel_/_Palestine and the refs there 644 645, which attribute the success to Trump specifically, rather than just his administration. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  foreignpolicy.com is a slanted opinion piece of a member of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, note the whining paragraph about Biden. Also, it only discusses the deal in the context of being a polit8cal victory for Trump. it does not attribute the success to Trump specifically. The Times of Israel notes that Netanyahu, a right-wing compatriot of the former president, "hails Trump" for the deal. So, an opinion, thus irrelevant. Zaathras (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  The foreignpolicy.com article 644 begins with criticism of Trump's previous claims of success in other areas, so it does not appear slanted towards Trump. The title, "The Israel-UAE Deal Is Trump’s First Unambiguous Diplomatic Success", specifically attributes the success to Trump. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  A "diplomatic success" is credited to the administration, not the man, as he engaged in no personal diplomacy. You are reading something into the citation that isn't there. Zaathras (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  I note that you wrote the truncated "diplomatic success" and not "Trump's diplomatic success", which was in the title. I expect you'll have some sort of rebuttal, but this is enough of this discussion for me. Bye. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  It wasn't necessary as we all know who we're talking about, but nonetheless I accept your concession of the point. Zaathras (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support. The reasons for exclusion are entirely partisan and/or anti-Trump, if we’re honest about it. I came across the same exclusion of the Abraham Accords at the Mike Pompeo BLP. Hopefully in a decade or two, the partisans will leave this article. But they’ll just move on to the next one. This is an incessantly recurring structural problem with Wikipedia. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  Note for the RfC closer, the above is not a vote to be counted, as it contains no policy or guideline reasons. It instead rests on uncivil aspersions cast upon other editors. Zaathras (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  Note for RFC closer and User:Zaathras, the pertinence of the Abraham Accords to the biography of Donald Trump is blindingly obvious. Consider, for example, this reliable source: Ward, Alexander; Toosi, Nahal; and Lemire, Jonathan. "The one word Biden won’t say in Israel; Try as he might, the president can’t escape the impact that Donald Trump had in the region", Politico (13 July 2022): "[T]he Abraham Accords [were] a Trump-backed effort to improve Israel’s relations with other Arab countries and better integrate it economically, diplomatically and otherwise into the Middle East. Those accords were brokered by the Trump White House, and they’ve normalized relations between Israel and a number of Arab countries, including Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Morocco. Arab nations had long made it clear that they would not negotiate with Israel until the Palestinians received an independent state of their own. But the Abraham Accords showed that Arab-Israeli relations could be decoupled from the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The Biden White House wants to build on what Trump started. 'We strongly support the Abraham Accords and normalization agreements between Israel and countries in the Arab and Muslim worlds,' an administration official told POLITICO. Biden aides privately concede that Trump’s deals have helped lower the temperature in the Middle East…." Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  That is not responsive to the central point. Trump had nothing to do with this. His administration accepted it. Trump himself could not even tell you what it was. SPECIFICO talk 02:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that various partisan opinions do blatantly contradict reliable sources such as the reliable secondary source that I just quoted at length. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  a Trump-backed effort, meaning he agreed to it, gives no indication of his direct hand. Those accords were brokered by the Trump White House, meaning Jared Kushner's team. Zaathras (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  I’m sure you’d be exerting every effort to delete all the lousy arguments and ideas that originated not with Trump, but with Giuliani, Navarro, Bannon, Stone, etc. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  First, this is not an RFC. No one has opened one either. Second, to attribute credit to Trump for the accords in this Trump biography article is synthesis and essentially orginal research. And, finally, this conversation is really tedious. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  Don’t tell me, write a letter to Politico. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  We don't need to, as we can plainly see that the citation does not say what you are misrepresenting it to be. Zaathras (talk) 03:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  I 100% agree with User:Steve Quinn that this discussion has become really tedious, bye. As much as I enjoy pounding my head against a brick wall, bye. Enjoy your evening, bye. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support - as it occurred during the Trump administration. GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  So did the California wildfires. SPECIFICO talk 06:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  So did hurricanes. [6], [7]. I was just thinking if Sharpie-gate isn't in this article, then maybe it should be :) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  Kentucky Derby scandal? SPECIFICO talk 17:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  Currently in the section Israel there is an item that begins, "Under Trump, the U.S. recognized ..." . Under Trump, the U.S. brokered the Abraham Accords. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  Shorthand for "Under the Trump administration...", yes. Zaathras (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  Here are the two items put together.

Trump supported many of the policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Under Trump, the U.S. recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, leading to international condemnation including from the United Nations General Assembly, the European Union, and the Arab League. Also under Trump, the U.S. brokered the Abraham Accords, which formally normalized relations between Israel and the Arab states of United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.

Bob K31416 (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• I take it this is not an RFC, but it is a proposal on the table to determine consensus. Is that correct? So it carries the weight of an RFC if this is being used to determine consensus. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  No that's not really the case. This is a standard discussion, Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 02:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  You think that if this poll favored inclusion, it couldn't establish a new consensus, overturning the current consensus to omit? Then why do it? SPECIFICO talk 03:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  There is not a consensus to omit right now and there's not a consensus to include. The purpose was not to be a poll, though it has turned into that. IMO, this discussion has not reached an agreement or a consensus. In theory, when a discussion hasn't reached a clear consensus, the next move is a RfC so outsiders can give input. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 03:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  No, that is not the "next step". That is beating a dead horse. After 3-4 tries, with no reasoned arguments to include, the matter should be dropped. SPECIFICO talk 09:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  The RfC was about adding three sentences on Trump announcing agreements between the UAE and Israel, Bahrain and Israel, and Sudan and Israel. I believe the rule is that if there's no consensus to include, it's status quo ante? Your proposed sentence is about a signing ceremony, and the document the four men signed was the Abraham Accords Declaration, a weirdly worded document you can read here. Trump also put his signature on the "Peace Agreements" between Israel and the UAE and between Israel and Bahrain, two countries whith whom Israel had never been at war, but he was a witness, not a signatory to the agreements. It was a publicity stunt to benefit Trump's reelection campaign. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  Also, there is RS reporting that the Trump staff cooked up the "Abraham Accords" name for the purpose of media promotion and had little or no other involvement. Also, also: if we get into these agreements we would likely be using sources that go into Jared's 9 figure fundraising from the Arab sovereign wealth funds. But anyway, all this should go in other articles. SPECIFICO talk 12:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  This "press-shy" and very talkative former general and current senior partner at Kushner’s $3 billion Saudi-funded Affinity Partners says the name South Lawn Accords North Lawn Accords Bedminster Accords Trump Accords Abraham Accords came to him out of nowhere half an hour before the announcement on August 13. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• @Chrismorey: should you consider opening up an RFC on this topic. Would you ping me about it? I no longer have this page (or Biden's) on my watchlist. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  At this point, that would be disruptive for a number of reasons, some of which have been stated above. You have not presented any source-and-policy-based rationale for including this in his life story biography article here, just personal opinion and false whataboutism. I'd strongly caution against that. SPECIFICO talk 16:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Why are you telling me this? I'm not planning an RFC. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support having this in the article, it was an accomplishment by Trump and any claim that it wasn't has zero evidence as the vast majority of sources credit it to Trump. [8][9][10] took me a minute to find these and numerous more could easily be linked. Bill Williams 03:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Bill Williams above. Pavlor (talk) 05:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose opening an RfC for this as per my reply to this proposal above. CrazyPredictor (talk) 03:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

We say that unlike other presidents, Trump has not continued to dominate the Republican party. The phrasing is confusing because the premise is that a) all other presidents dominate the republican party during office (democrat and republican presidents) and b) given that a democrat president that retires is often not in domination of the republican party, they are not suited to be a point of reference for the "unlike" conector and the conclusion. Maybe the fix is to say "Unlike other republican presidents...? Forich (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The relevant section is Post-presidency (2021–present) Forich (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The last line of the main page before edits is misleading. There are no statistics to support the ambiguous conjecture. Suggest removal of sentence until further research or citation can be provided. 147.92.19.239 (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2022 (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. General Ization ^Talk 00:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe they are referring to the line about Trump being ranked as one of the worst president by scholars and historians. If that is the case IP, there is a consensus to have that sentence. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!

Bcxfu75k (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Bcxfu75k: I'm not seeing the same error. Is it still there? If so can you please provide some details about how you're accessing Wikipedia? ––FormalDude talk 07:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't change my accessing environments. But Everythings fine now! sorry for that.

Bcxfu75k (talk) 09:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the sentence "Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history" should be cited, based on consensus item 58. Thoughts? 2ple (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

You're probably going to find enforcing consensus item 58 in any meaningful way to be very difficult and not worth the time. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 20:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

As with any meaningful change pertaining to this article (an article which always seems to be vehemently protected by the same five gatekeepers). It's worth my time, I assure you. Considering how long it took to push item 58 through, I am going to use it. Plus, this sentence was already previously cited anyway. 2ple (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it should have an inline citation. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd rather not kowtow to every whinge that comes along. The lede summarizes the body, so what one reads in the beginning regarding this is cited later in Donald_Trump#Approval_ratings_and_scholar_surveys. Zaathras (talk) 04:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Added citation. This was already referenced after this discussion but an editor apparently removed it recently for no good reason. ––FormalDude talk 04:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

FormalDude, it happened once in the three months since the discussion on what to cite, so I don't see a need to add a note to the lead. I couldn't remove it without adding most of the wealth section (everything after (1,299th in the world)) from the body to the lead and removing the entire Personal life section from the body (see here). It doesn't show in the editor but it's in the article whenever the note, with or without the cites, is removed. Some kind of script that I can't see? If it is, it doesn't seem to be all that useful. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: It appears you're removing the end of the note about the last sentence in addition to removing the citations and their note. Ultimately I don't see a problem with a hidden note for an item that has consensus. ––FormalDude talk 17:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I removed the --> of the preceding note about consensus item 54 as well. My bad, and talk about unforeseen consequences! Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

There's a whole section in the article covering this that is full of citations. If the reader can't be bothered to go past the lead, I can't be bothered to care about their opinion.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

It was pointed out to me that the George W. Bush article, says, "He sought major changes to Social Security and immigration laws, but both efforts failed in Congress." Why shouldn't this article include Trump's notable failure to pass healthcare or infrastructure? Andre🚐 23:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Or legislation to fund the wall that Mexico was going to pay for? Which of these did he promise to implement? I think Bush's social security cancelation was pretty half-hearted and he dropped it almost immediately after raising it. SPECIFICO talk 01:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The differences: Bush actually had a plan for overhauling Social Security, including partially privatizing it. It was unpopular, and then his response to hurricane Katrina tanked what was left of his post-9/11 reputation and any chances his proposal ever had for passing. Immigration was "one of his signature domestic initiatives" (quoting WP). Bush proposed sensible immigration plans and pushed hard for them but couldn’t get enough votes in the Senate. Health care and infrastructure were two of Trump’s signature crowd pleasers. He (and the GOP) never got around to proposing a health care plan, and he ended up trying to put his name on a kneecapped version of the ACA. "The $1 trillion (later $1.5 trillion) [infrastructure] package boiled down to a series of White House budget sketches, proposing to use $200 billion as an incentive for private investors, states and localities to put up the remaining $800 billion. … And the president’s building vows never came to pass." Aside from these reasons for not mentioning health care and infrastructure, we’re also not bound by the decisions of other editors on other Wikipedia pages. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC) Jpcase, please, do not change other editors' comments, including the indentation. That was my response to Andrevan, not to Specifico. Reverting. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

While we may not be bound by how other articles are written, Andrevan makes a valid point that it's fairly common for the lead sections of articles on former US presidents to mention major failed policy goals. Beyond the example of George W. Bush, there's the leads of: the Bill Clinton article, which states that Clinton "failed to pass his plan for national health care reform"; the Barack Obama article, which states that Obama "advocated for gun control in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, indicating support for a ban on assault weapons"; and the Harry S. Truman article, which states, that Truman "proposed Congress pass comprehensive civil rights legislation. Congress refused, so in 1948 Truman issued Executive Order 9980 and Executive Order 9981 which desegregated the armed forces and federal agencies." The lead for this article already mentions that Trump rescinded the individual mandate of the ACA, so I'm not sure if there's any need to go beyond that in discussing health care. But there could be value in saying something about Trump's failed infrastructure propsal, which was a very widely covered aspect of his presidency. --Jpcase (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The deal is, the lead is supposed to summarize what the body of the article says. Which is to say, the lead is the "article in miniature". There's literally only a single, short sentence on the failed infrastructure plan in the entire body of the article. If it's only important to briefly gloss over in the article body, then it isn't important enough to mention at all in the lead. I would expect several well-developed paragraphs about the topic before it shows up in the lead. --Jayron32 15:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Generally, that would be true. But the lead for this article already includes several topics that are only briefly mentioned in the body. Repealing the individual mandate gets only one sentence. Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and the TPP negotiations both get only one full sentence each, with one or two additional sentences briefly mentioning the topics alongside other issues (Trump's infrastructure proposal is also mentioned alongside other issues in a second sentence, in addition to the one full sentence about it). Despite the minimal coverage of these topics in the body, it still makes sense to mention them in the lead, because the body includes links to separate articles covering all of these topics in more detail. --Jpcase (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

"the lead for this article already includes several topics that are only briefly mentioned in the body" The existence of other patently and obviously wrong things does not mean we should do more wrong things. We're not discussing those other wrong things right now. If you want to fix them, you should probably do so. But insofar as we are discussing this thing, we have guidance at WP:LEAD. We follow that guidance. There are a multitude of ways to address this issue, up to and including expanding the body to include sufficient information about this topic so it is relevant enough for the lead. Among the many different ways to address it, using other obvious violations of best practices as examples does not get you a better article. It gets you a worse article. --Jayron32 17:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that's a valid point, @Jayron32. We should address it in the article body first. Andre🚐 18:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

That was, in fact, the first, last, and only point I was trying to make. Want it in the lead? Add more to the body of the article. Wikipedia becomes more comprehensive, the article becomes better, and no one loses! Win-win. --Jayron32 18:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but you will need to contend with a small number of editors who perennially claim that the article length requires that important and well-cited content must be removed. SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Quantity isn't the only thing that matters. Trump announced the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement, making the U.S. the only nation in the world to not ratify the agreement and withdrawing the U.S. from the TPP — things he actually did do, with consequences. Not being able to keep campaign promises isn't all that unusual. Of course, other presidents don't usually keep announcing the same big projects with big fanfare over and over again and then not delivering them — Trump being Trump or "The Presidency - the reality TV show". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Did he end up buying Greenland for what was estimated to cost nearly a trillion dollars? No, it's irrelevant, and such things should not be discussed. Bill Williams 15:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

IMHO, just add the info to the Trump administration page. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the healthcare section is pretty decent. Maybe mentioning repealing the individual mandate would be good. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

File that under "budget deficit". SPECIFICO talk 01:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Andrevan, wasn't your original edit prompting this discussion, by your own admission, designed to make a point on the Talk page for Joe Biden? There you wrote:

"I noticed that @Davefelmer restored the "failed in Congress" stuff. This is clearly WP:RECENTISM and not WP:10YEARS. Most presidential pages do not talk about the bills that failed before the bill passed. Trump never passed infrastructure or any healthcare reform bill. I just added that to his page[3], how long until someone comes along and reverts it with similar arguments that it's undue for the lede?"

I am struggling to reconcile your opposite arguments on the two different pages—and to understand why you've invited, at a minimum, the appearance of political partisanship. Would you kindly explain any difference you sincerely believe there to be between including such material in the two articles? And, assuming one exists, why you neither included it on that page when you announced your edit to this page—nor mentioned the genesis of that edit on this page at all? Thanks! ElleTheBelle 22:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I already explained, as did other editors above, the difference. Biden is currently in office, and to say that some legislation has failed doesn't address the fact that some of that legislation got reworked into other legislation, and he still has time to pass other legislation. Trump has already left office and he failed to fulfill his promise to address infrastructure or healthcare. And it proved my point that editors rushed to revert me, and none of my attempts to improve the article stand. Which is not a huge deal to me, but I do think that my edit was fair. Trump did not pass infrastructure or healthcare, despite many many promises and lots of media coverage on this. Andre🚐 22:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that this was correct. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Andrevan, the sentence you added is merely a wordier version of the preceding sentence with an addition that seems trivial.

Trump also failed to deliver the $1 trillion infrastructure spending plan he had campaigned on.^[1]
Trump ran on a $1 trillion infrastructure pledge, which he did not deliver while in office despite repeated claims that it was "infrastructure week."^[2]

He proclaimed a few infrastructure weeks, announced upcoming big announcements about infrastructure that turned out to be the same vague "vision talk" if they weren't derailed by other events. The lead does mention Trump's health care achievements in the fourth paragraph: He signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which cut taxes for individuals and businesses and rescinded the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Act. Another campaign promise that he didn't keep and we don't mention in the lead is the one saying he would eliminate the national debt in eight years. Instead, it had increased by 39% in four years. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

That's fair. Andre🚐 17:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

[EDIT: Have removed my objection, problem seems resolved. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I added a signature image based upon his signature during his Presidency, and that was reverted to one from prior to his Presidency that was derived from a low-resolution image on one of his hotel websites. Is there a reason we're deferring to an older image for the infobox that doesn't reflect one of the most significant times in his life? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

This has been previously discussed. The present signature is Trump's traditional signature while the signature you want to use (and one similar has been used before the discussion) looks extremely sloppy, disorganized, and quickly written (which it was, as he was signing a stack of documents, as all U.S. presidents do, right after the inauguration speech). Randy Kryn (talk) 06:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

This has been previously discussed. And? The present signature is Trump's traditional signature ^{[citation needed]} [opinion masquerading as fact] I'll say it again: you're using a signature derived from prior to his Presidency, is there a compelling reason to use an older signature beyond WP:ILIKEIT? —Locke Cole • t • c 06:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that the file (File:Donald Trump (Presidential signature).svg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) description page includes a link to the secondary source that is discussing his signature (links: this article (archive URL)). The providence of this as opposed to the random hotel website image, which is also low resolution and thus vectorizes softly, should be clear. In additional to being more temporally accurate, it's also a better representation that is openly discussed as the primary subject of the reliable source used to source it. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

How exactly is this signature any more "sloppy" and "disorganized" than the current one? ––FormalDude (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Just look at them, side by side if need be. The quickly scrawled signature is from a pile that Trump signed quickly and looks like it. The other is more representative of his usual signature. Locke Cole, if you want a signature during his time as president please look for an example that at least doesn't look like he signed it on a napkin for a fan while walking quickly down the street. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like original research to me. What sources say that one is more usual? ––FormalDude (talk) 11:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The signature has been discussed many times on this talk page (see history) and the present one has been agreed upon. The proposed signature seems very sloppy, especially "Donald" and not his usual style. Since there is no overriding need to change it, and the change has been reverted, it should stay until a full RfC is held to arrive at a well-reasoned change consensus. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I found one literally used as a specimen in an article about his signature. We aren't going to supplant what our reliable sources are providing with what your opinion is. This is Wikipedia, not Randypedia. If someone can find a more recent discussion of his signature than the article I linked above, with a specimen from the article, I'll happily get that vectorized, but this is the one I found while looking and it tracks with what I've personally seen of his signature during his time in office. Also, the title of the source article where this image was found is titled Trump takes a ridiculously long time to sign his name. Which just demonstrates that your claim that it is quickly written is false. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Instead of insults (have you used that one before or am I the first?) and arguing over a past consensus, there must be public domain copies of Trump's signature around. I would think, but am not sure, that all the bills he signed while in office would be useable as a signature, and picking out several of those to look at maybe everyone can agree to one of them as an adequate signature. Do you have a link to the article, it sounds like a good read. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I linked it above, it is also linked from the image description page, but here it is again: this article (archive URL). Also, I am not trying to be insulting, so I apologize for that. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Changed my mind after looking at a selection of Trump's signatures. He does sort of wander all over the place when signing things, and the choice you've made, Locke Cole, seems as good as any and maybe middling in the pack from sloppy to clearer. I'll leave a link to this post at the top of the section. I thought Trump wrote his name clearer than this, my mistake. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that Randy, I wasn't trying to find one better or worse than what was here, just one that was more accurate/recent given the age/source of the original. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

They both look like chicken scratches to me. He's no longer president. Maybe we should find his post-presidency chicken scratches in Sharpie or whatever writing instrument he's using now that the government is no longer providing him fancy Cross pens, or did he take a few of those to Mar-a-Lago as well? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused how any claim of "extremely sloppy, disorganized, and quickly written" when the article the signature is from is titled Trump takes a ridiculously long time to sign his name and goes on to explain how slow it was when he signed that signature. A direct quote from the article Handwriting expert Marc J. Seifer, who observed the ceremonial signing, noted how deliberate Trump’s penmanship was. Seems like any claim of "rushed" isn't based on the source. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

If anything, that makes the situation all the more laughable, if he writes with deliberateness and still produces nothing that looks like a recognizable letter of the alphabet. Zaathras (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I've restored the signature as there appears to no longer be any objections. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  Is it safe to add it back to ((Donald Trump series))? Or do we need an RFC on that template? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  Seems fine by me, if any has a problem they can take it up at the template talk page. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Trump's popular vote loss is mentioned in the introductory body despite the same not being mentioned on Barack Obama's introductory body. Why is that? 216.164.249.213 (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Because Barack Obama won the popular vote against McCain and Romney, so there's nothing to mention. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I mistakenly thought Romney won the popular vote. In any case, I checked the pages of other presidents who won the election despite losing the popular vote, and it is not mentioned in their introductory bodies either. So it should either be added to their pages, or removed from Trump's. 216.164.249.213 (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Romney, Mr. popularity? He's not even secure in his home state. SPECIFICO talk 14:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

From the lead of George W. Bush: Bush defeated Democratic incumbent Vice President Al Gore after a narrow and contested win that involved a Supreme Court decision to stop a recount in Florida. He became the fourth person to be elected president without a popular vote victory.

From the lead of Benjamin Harrison: A Republican, Harrison was elected to the presidency in 1888, defeating the Democratic incumbent Grover Cleveland in the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote.

From the lead of Rutherford B. Hayes: In 1877, Hayes assumed the presidency following the 1876 United States presidential election, one of the most contentious in U.S. history. Hayes lost the popular vote to Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, and neither candidate secured enough electoral votes.

From the lead of John Quincy Adams: Adams, Andrew Jackson, William H. Crawford, and Henry Clay — all members of the Democratic-Republican Party — competed in the 1824 presidential election. Because no candidate won a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives held a contingent election, which Adams won with the support of Speaker of the House Clay, whom Adams would go on to controversially appoint as his Secretary of State.

I don't know where you got the idea that none of the leads mention popular vote loss but Trump's. JQA's situation is a bit different than the others, sure, but all four leads reference their narrow at best victories appropriately. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't mentioned in any president's pages. I just said it wasn't mentioned in the ones that I checked. Again, it's just about consistency. 216.164.249.213 (talk) 07:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The ones that Muboshgu listed are the only ones that fit the criteria. Those are the only other elections where the popular vote winner lost the electoral college vote. As Muboshgu showed, ALL of them mention the discrepancy. So, which articles did you check? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@216.164.249.213: Exactly which ones did you check? GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that Trump's loss of the pop. vote in 2016 should be mentioned per consistency with other presidential bio articles, however I argue that the current language should be changed, as has been discussed on these talk page previously. The current language comes off as a pot shot against Trump ("He did win the election, BUT he didn't win the popular vote, so there!") I propose changing the Trump language to be more similar to the matter-of-fact language of the George W. Bush article: "He became the fifth person to be elected President without a popular vote victory.") Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it's the pot shot aspect of this which is the problem. There are too many passages in the article which read Trump did X, but Y, with Y being something that undermines X.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

By all means, make the required changes. So it will appear 'neutral', like the others. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

On the graph with the misleading or false statements it says that it was be the Washington Post, CNN, and the Toronto Star. While I am unaware of the political standing of the Toronto Star I know that the other two are directly opposed to Donald Trump. 71.213.46.36 (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

They are all reliable sources, see WP:RSP. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 00:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@71.213.46.36 All media is biased, except perhaps the AP. It is the text of the Wikipedia article that must refrain from bias. When it comes to sources, the concern is reliability, and the sources you mention are reliable sources. Perhaps, in the spirit of Truth Social, Trump will start his own smaller Wikipedia called Reliable Wiki, where reliable sources are not permitted, but your point is rather moot here. 66.169.54.35 (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

In this edit concerning Roe v. Wade an editor replaced the longstanding wording in the cited source and in jurisprudence -- "overturn" -- with the word "overrule". The unsourced and incorrect word "overrule" minimizes one of the key issues that have made this so noteworthty and significant. Namely: That Roe v. Wade had been considered settled law for half a century, had repeatedly been affirmed as such by the Court, and had been affirmed as such in multiple supreme court confirmation hearings including currently serving justices. "Overrule" is what an appeals court does when it reverses a lower court decision. It's routine. "Overturn" is a rare event, much more rare when the subject has repeatedly been confrimed by diverse prior courts. Language matters. We don't know whether such equivocation was intentional, but it's important we all be mindful of such issues in our own edits and those we see from others with whom we collaborate on these pages. SPECIFICO talk 18:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree with "overturn" being the proper term, by definition, by source, and by easy recognition for readers, as that seems to me to be the most common term for when a case is completely set aside by a subsequent ruling. You overturn a conviction in case of a miscarriage of justice, you don't overrule a conviction. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Also agree. I know Google "hit counts" are just extremely rough estimates, but "overturn Roe v Wade" outnumbers "overrule Roe v Wade" 42 to 1. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I think either are technically ok to use, but from what I've seen overrule is used more often in prose. For example, the opening of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. Also, I really don't see how this is a "POV language issue". Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

There actually appears to be not really common use on Wiki either way. For instance: Brown v. Board of Education says it "overturned" Plessy v. Ferguson, but then PVF says it was "Overruled" by Brown v Board. It also isn't consistent on the article, called overruled in body, overturned in infobox. So..... FrederalBacon (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

It says in the second sentence of Brown that it "partially overruled its 1896 decision Plessy v. Ferguson..." Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Right, noted the discrepancy, overruled in body, overturned in infobox. Also, more examples include Obergefell v. Hodges: Decided on June 26, 2015, Obergefell overturned Baker. It seems to be used interchangeably. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it matters.Jack Upland (talk) 04:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, if anything you have this backwards. An appeals court would not say it's "overruling" a lower court decision; by far the most common term for that is "reverse" or sometimes "remand" depending on the specifics. "Overrule" is used when a court undoes its own precedent. "Overturn" is not much used in formal legal writing, although since this article isn't formal legal writing, that doesn't really matter. SS451 (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Not worth much, because the issue is NPOV relative to mainstream RS description, not the words of the courts. SPECIFICO talk 02:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Text copied from archive 148: We say that unlike other presidents, Trump has not continued to dominate the Republican party. The phrasing is confusing because the premise is that a) all other presidents dominate the republican party during office (democrat and republican presidents) and b) given that a democrat president that retires is often not in domination of the republican party, they are not suited to be a point of reference for the "unlike" conector and the conclusion. Maybe the fix is to say "Unlike other republican presidents...? User Forich, 21:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The relevant section is Post-presidency (2021–present) User Forich, 21:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Forich, I didn't notice your archived comment on the Talk page until I saw your edit here. You are right that the phrasing was unclear but the fix wasn't to restrict the meaning to Republican presidents. The source is talking about modern-day presidents of any party. I removed both mentions of "Republican" from the sentence. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Better to remove the comparison altogether. I mean, what is the meaning of "modern-day"? Were there any medieval US Presidents? Just stick to the facts about Trump. Or eliminate the pesky sentence altogether!Jack Upland (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

And, by the way, the text omits the "not", unlike the text copied above...--Jack Upland (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The text in the article is correct. I hadn't noticed that Forich's version contained an error. I just looked at the allegedly unclear version and improved it by replacing "Republican" with "his" party to clarify that before Trump no former president of any party had behaved like a modern-day party boss. I think the meaning of the sentence is perfectly clear, and it's the source that made the comparison. Modern-day: "someone or something of the present is similar to someone or something of the past". The linked page party boss needs improvement, a link to Boss Tweed, the original party boss, might be more helpful. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bsherr: You violated the page restriction "24-hour BRD cycle" by reinstating your removal of the Muslim ban text you removed. You also have given a false edit summary, since you did not merely move that text to a new section when you removed it. Please self-revert and use the talk page. Placement and language are part of the meaning and narrative of this article. As I said in my edit summary when I undid your deletion of the longstanding text, this was a key campaign issue for Trump and as such was appropriately placed IMO before you removed it. SPECIFICO talk 18:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Your edit wasn't a reversion. I moved the reference down the page to support an identical statement in the travel ban section. You added the reference back to the "Election to the presidency" section, but didn't name the reference, thus creating a duplicate reference. That's what I then reverted. I guess you can revert my original change if you do it properly pending discussion here.

On the merits of the matter, there are two sentences that say the travel bans resulted in protests, one in the "Election to the presidency" section, and one in the "Travel ban" section. It doesn't belong in the "Election to the presidency" section. The election to the presidency section talks about the period of time from Election Day to the inauguration, and the protests that were reactionary to the inauguration. The implication in the sentence that the travel ban protests were somehow connected to the inauguration is not supported by the reference, and is likely Wikipedia:Original research. The reference belongs in the travel ban section, where a nearly identical sentence already exists, and since it already exists, I simply moved the reference. --Bsherr (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Using a search function, I fail to see the identical text moved downtown. Please indicate the exact location. No, I cannot undo your reinsertion, because then I too would be violating 24-hour BRD. You are the one who needs to reverse your own violation. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

"Confusion and protests caused chaos at airports.^[1][2]"

--Bsherr (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

That is not the text we are discussing. Please review your own edits and please self-revert. I have left a warning and notices on your talk page. SPECIFICO talk 19:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

What is the text we are discussing, then? --Bsherr (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

You need to self-revert. You violated the page restriction by re-doing your own edit. Are you seriously asking me to tell you what you deleted? To answer your question, you'll need to read your own edit and see what you removed. SPECIFICO talk 20:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I am having trouble understanding you. As I explained above, there are two sentences that say the travel bans resulted in protests, one in the "Election to the presidency" section, and one in the "Travel ban" section. I deleted the one in the "Election to the presidency" section and moved the reference to the sentence in the "Travel ban" section. Then you asked me what sentence in the "Travel ban" section. I quoted the sentence in the "Travel ban" section. And you said that's not the sentence we are discussing. What are you asking me? --Bsherr (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• This is not a forum to discuss behavior allegations, including whether or not someone broke arbitration restrictions. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 22:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

If someone (allegedly, intentionally or unintentionally) violated restrictions placed on this page, then this Talk page is the place to discuss it, I would think?? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

This the place to discuss improvements to this article. Not user conduct. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 22:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

See Resolving user conduct disputes: "If the issue is a conduct dispute (i.e., editor behavior) the first step is to talk with the other editor at their user talk page in a polite, simple, and direct way. Try to avoid discussing conduct issues on article Talk pages." TFD (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Gee, seems like these rebukes belong in user space rather than in a location that negates their dubious message. SPECIFICO talk 15:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Good, so please hat this section so we can return to discusses article improvement. TFD (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

IMO, the primary issue is a content dispute, two editors disagreeing on what the content should be. Other editors may want to weigh in. The alleged 25-BRD violation grew out of that dispute. I probably muddied the waters further by editing (improving!) the "Travel ban" section but I didn't want to stray into edit-warring territory. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The text that was removed

The text that was removed is this, also removed here. Your edit summaries were false, most egregiously the second time when you again reverted the longstanding text, claiming that It wasn't removed, just moved, down to the section about the travel ban... when in fact, as I've said several times, you removed the text in question. Please do the right thing -- remove the DS violation, folllow BRD, and respond to the substantive issue I've identified in my edit summaires and in this thread. SPECIFICO talk 21:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, it is very difficult to understand you. For the third time: There are two sentences that say the travel bans resulted in protests, one in the "Election to the presidency" section, and one in the "Travel ban" section. I deleted the one in the "Election to the presidency" section and moved the reference to the sentence in the "Travel ban" section. I didn't violate the discretionary sanctions because there is an exception for unsourced statements in BLP articles. I likewise won't restore the sentence because it is an unsourced statement in a BLP article, but I won't stop you from doing so. I only ask that you properly consolidate the references when you do it. The source says nothing about "marches", only protests, and it says nothing connecting the protests to the inauguration: it never even refers to the inauguration. Rather than scream about "violations", why don't you actually address the substance of the reasons I deleted the sentence and moved the reference? --Bsherr (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, why did you refactor my ((Reflist-talk)) template here [32]? Its removal screws up the appearance of the talk page. --Bsherr (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

You removed the sentence but said in the edit summary that you were "consolidating with coverage in travel ban section", and you didn’t move it to the travel ban section, as you claimed here when you removed it again, saying that "events occurred two months after the election". The protests started on January 28 (the CBS source you did move to the travel ban section is dated Jan 29, and it says "protesters gathered … yesterday"), the day after Trump’s executive order which left people stranded at airports. We can discuss whether it should stay in the election paragraph or not, or whether it needs to be mentioned at all, but for now I’ve put it back where it was (with the corrected date). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC) I also changed "marches" to "protests", per the source. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I explained why I think it is irrelevant to the "Election to the presidency" section, and that the sentence is improper synthesis. I've moved the sentence, verbatim, to the travel ban section, and flagged the improper synthesis. No one has responded substantively to the issue I raised about the improper synthesis. Does anyone actually take the opposite view? --Bsherr (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I explained, and can anyone actually disagree? 24-hr BRD cycle: If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit). Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts. Your edit was reverted. You reverted the rvt instead of starting a discussion on the talk page which was then started by the editor who objected to your initial edit. The objection was longstanding text, this was a key campaign issue for Trump and as such was appropriately placed IMO before you removed it. Then I reverted on procedural grounds and was ignored as well, with you tagging the sentence along the way without mentioning it in the edit summary. Well, all is well as long as you 'splained and decided the discussion was over. Way to collaborate. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems you have misinterpreted my remark. When I said above, "Does anyone actually take the opposite view?", I was asking for a discussion of the merits of the change to finally start, not "decid[ing] the discussion was over." Does that clarify? And once again, User:SPECIFICO did not revert my edit (instead, he added back the sentence and reference, but did not remove my addition of the same reference to the lower section, creating a duplicate reference), and per WP:3RRNO, an exemption applies to edits "[r]emoving contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy." It was my further understanding based on the discussion we have had so far that there is no concern with moving the sentence, just that the sentence remain intact while we discuss it. But as I said above, I have no objection to anyone else reverting the change while we discuss it. So again, does anyone take the view that the phrase is not improper synthesis based on the referenced source? --Bsherr (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Or have we moved past this since Space4Time3Continuum2x has removed the offending phrase anyway? --Bsherr (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

For the reasons I previously stated and explained, I believe the longstanding placement was correct and better conveyed the public reaction to Trump's stand on this issue and his ascension to the presidency. SPECIFICO talk 14:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a reference connecting the two events? --Bsherr (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Citation: https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/18/politics/rusty-bowers-fascism-trump-election-cnntv/index.html SoCalGoetz (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Citation "pressuring government officials" https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/18/politics/rusty-bowers-fascism-trump-election-cnntv/index.html SoCalGoetz (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

What article text addition or deletion or modification are you suggesting? The edit request needs to be specific. SPECIFICO talk 20:51, 18 September 2022 (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. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Please get rid of the sentence mentioning that Ivana, Trump's first wife, accused Donald Trump of rape. She later backtracked on this statement and clarified that it was false. Here is proof of this: abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/donald-trumps-wife-ivana-disavows-rape-allegation/story%3fid=32732204 161.130.189.235 (talk) 05:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

That link didn't work for me, he's a working one: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trumps-wife-ivana-disavows-rape-allegation/story?id=32732204. I added the context that she recanted it; we can't state on anyone's article that someone accused them of rape without also mentioning that they recanted their accusation (if they have done so). I would also find it acceptable to remove mention of Ivana from this little summary just to trim down the word count though. Endwise (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Yep, just remove Ivana.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Here's what happened: NPR and Daily Beast, as told by Ivana in a deposition during the divorce proceedings from Donald Trump and reported by journalist Harry Hurt III in his 1993 book Lost Tycoon. When the book was published, she said that she didn't use the word "rape" in the criminal sense, but she didn't walk back the description. When the Daily Beast reported the story in July 2015, she said that the story was "totally without merit". I assume that means that she lied under oath during the deposition in the divorce proceedings, so why should we believe what she said 25 years later when her ex was running for president and she was planning a book on Family Values from America's First Mother? As for the long-standing text, let's discuss whether to keep or remove it. I say keep because it was a deposition under oath and all we're saying is that the women accused him. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  It's not for us to determine whether she was lying or not; that's not the kind of thing we should engage in speculation in as editors. The source we use for this line is in the article Vox, which says Although Trump’s ex-wife now says her story was “without merit,” in a divorce deposition in 1992, Ivana Trump described a violent sexual assault by her then-husband. Your or my opinion on how trustworthy her statements are is irrelevant. Endwise (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Vox puts her statement in scare quotes, ABC says that she "appeared to refute the allegations", NPR just lists she said/and then she said/and then she said — I don't see any recantation. I take it you support removing including his first wife? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

per BLP, this is an unproven accusation that was withdrawn, so we need to remove it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

No, our policy does not say to remove it. It says to provide fully contextualized RS narratives. I may be more appropriate for a different article, however. SPECIFICO talk 12:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Probably needs to be removed because she recanted the allegation, meaning there is no longer an allegation. At the very least, say she recanted it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 14:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Particularly considering this is a BLP and also comes under post-1992 U.S. politics sanctions, we should be careful in the wording. According to Harry Hurt III, Ivana accused Trump of rape in a sealed deposition of which he had obtained a copy, but subsequently threw out.[33] So Hurt's claim cannot be confirmed and I wouldn't call a secret statement a public declaration.

If you want to mention it, the full context must provided, including Ivana's response. I don't know if it has weight for inclusion.

TFD (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The sanctions have nothing to do with this content. BLP yes, but more significantly, WEIGHT. It's not significant to the narrative of this article. Put it in other articles where it can be fully described, if it fits. SPECIFICO talk 12:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

No reason to include it anymore. Bill Williams 12:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I would like to make these changes to the family separation section to try to make it more concise, as the article is quite large. The change was reverted with the assertion that the edit was biased, so I'd like to find out excatly which language is biased, because there are several changes here. Bsherr (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I changed the clause, "in fact, the Trump administration joined a lawsuit seeking to strike down the entire ACA, including protections for those with pre-existing conditions" to a separate sentence reading, "After the repeal of the individual shared responsibility provision, the Trump administration argued to the Supreme Court in California v. Texas that the ACA is unconstitutional." The statement that the Trump administration joined the lawsuit is provably false. Instead, the administration was substituted as a defendant by the plaintiffs; in other words, they didn't join in any voluntary sense, they were sued." Furthermore, the notion that the Trump administration's argument in the lawsuit implies a policy preference for eliminating coverage for pre-existing conditions, or connecting the lawsuit with that policy goal, is not mentioned in the cited sources. Can the reverting user (who I won't ping because the user thinks that a direct mention of him is a personal attack, but hopefully sees this anyway) please explain how correcting these errors disrupts the supposed narrative of this article? Bsherr (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

there is a total of 16 u.s. leaders who never actually served or had military duties....come on now 2601:542:103:86E0:155F:712A:9542:99B (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The line in question is He became the first U.S. president with no prior military or government service (emphasis my own). The article doesn't say he's the first without just military service. — Czello 09:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I'd support reversing the order of those two words: government service is actually more common by a lot than military service. Many more presidents are former politicians of some sort than served in the military of those who didn't do both. Loki (talk) 05:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

How many of those 16 did not serve when a draft was in effect? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

As said above we do not say he was. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Facepalm – Muboshgu (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Trump graduated from the Wharton School of ECONOMICS, not the Wharton School of Business. The page shows the Wharton School that links to the Wharton School of Business Wikipedia page. Trump has a Bachelor of SCIENCE in Economics. This is different from. Bachelor of Business in Economics. UPenn does not offer an undergraduate Business degree. 207.199.239.163 (talk) 05:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

That's how it is described in reliable sources. Trump studied business at the Wharton School, although the U of Penn provided him with an economics degree. TFD (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)