Talk:Donald Trump

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Former good article nomineeDonald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
June 2, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
February 12, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
September 18, 2016Good article nomineeNot listed
May 25, 2017Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Highlighted open discussions[edit]

Current consensus[edit]

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

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

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

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

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 (link 1, link 2) (superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

5. Use Donald Trump's net worth evaluation and matching rankings, from the Forbes annual list of billionaires (currently the March 2018 edition, $3.1B/766th/248th), not from monthly or "live" estimates. (link 1) In the lede section, just write: Forbes estimates his net worth to be $3.1 billion. (link 2, link 3)

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

7. Include "Many of his public statements were controversial or false." in the lead. (link 1, link 2, wording shortened per link 3, upheld with link 4)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

15. There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense.[1] No new changes should be applied without debate. (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (link 5) (cancelled by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lede section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

16. Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (link) (cancelled by lede section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

17. The lead paragraph is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United States. Before entering politics he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. See link 1, link 2, link 3 and link 4 for substance; link 5 and link 6 for minor changes. Amended by lede section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018.

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

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

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

21. Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him. (link 1, link 2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: Should the lead include a sentence about Trump's racial stance?[edit]

Close requested.[2]JFG talk 17:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a weak consensus in favor of the proposal.

I am not much impressed by the arguments from some of the opposers (MONGO, JFG, GW) all of whom has been excellently rebutted by Snow.I similarly fail to parse PackMeceng's last line, in light of the abundance of reliable sourcing on the issue and some arguments by the last !voter, which can be assigned as OR.

That leaves us with WP:LABEL (which does make an exception in cases of abundance of reporting by reliable sources) and WP:WEIGHT.

A rough weight-based re-count of heads do lead to a consensus for inclusion.But, feel free to tweak the wording, as necessary by normal t/p discourse.WBGconverse 12:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Should the second paragraph of the lead include a sentence summarizing Trump's history of racially charged comments and racially motivated actions?

Specifically, something like:

Many of his comments and actions have been perceived by some as racially charged.


"If it were a one-time comment, an inadvertent insensitivity, it would still have stirred a firestorm. But Mr. Trump has said so many things on so many occasions that have rubbed the raw edges of race in America that they have raised the larger issue. "
— The New York Times

"The president’s approach to race has by many accounts damaged America’s standing in the world and complicated his foreign policy."
— The New York Times

"Mr. Trump’s history of racially inflammatory episodes traces back to his first days in the public eye. "
— The New York Times

"As he became more of a public figure, Mr. Trump waded into racially charged controversies that periodically erupted in New York. "
— The New York Times

"Trump has a long record as a provocateur on matters of race and ethnicity."
— Fortune

"You don’t even have to look into Trump’s heart to see his racism. You only have to look at all the things he’s done and said over the years – from the early Seventies, when he settled with the Justice Department over accusations of housing discrimination, to Monday, when just hours after his speech news broke he is considering pardoning anti-immigrant sheriff Joe Arpaio."
— Rolling Stone

"He has built a legacy of race-baiting throughout his career – from his apartment buildings in the outer boroughs right into the White House."
— Rolling Stone

"President Donald Trump’s long history with race is complicated."

"While Trump’s actions have landed on both sides of racial currents, his public record depicts a man who most often moves in one direction: overlooking racial sensitivity and concerns in the name of fighting “political correctness.”"

"Most Americans think President Trump is a racist, according to a new poll by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research."
— The Washington Post

"From the moment he launched his candidacy by attacking Mexican immigrants as criminals, President Trump has returned time and again to language that is racially charged and, to many, insensitive and highly offensive."
— Los Angeles Times

"Trump, who is desperate to distract his base from his myriad failures of policy, from health care to immigration, is perfectly capable of devising his racist rhetoric all on his own."
— The New Yorker

"Trump, rather than seeking to end the controversy, worked at length to fan it. Even after Obama released his “long-form” birth certificate, meanwhile, Trump continued to spread birther innuendo. The statement is at once a welcome recognition and also obviously too little, too late, after Trump spent five years fanning the racist conspiracy theory."
— The Atlantic

"World leaders, leading newspapers, and celebrities have used unprecedented language to describe a possible future president: "Racist", "repellent", "ignorant"."

Please indicate whether you support or oppose this wording (or very similar) being added to the lead. If you wish to propose different wording, please start a separate RfC. Thank you.- MrX 🖋 18:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose Conditional support if this RFC fails. Statement should be

    Many of his comments and actions have been racially charged.

    Enough sources state this, that Wikipedia should just state this.Casprings (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
    @Casprings: Do you want to start a parallel RfC to see if there is support for that?- MrX 🖋 18:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - It's hard for me to get fully behind this proposal without more specific wording, knowing how many different directions the basic proposed template could be built out in. What I will say with more certainty is that I think Mr. X has made their case, vis-a-vis sourcing, that something of this sort is WP:DUE for the lead. Snow let's rap 20:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, Mr. X, which four sources were you thinking for the cite here? Snow let's rap 20:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Off the top of my head, probably the first four (The New York Times, Fortune, Rolling Stone, and PBS).- MrX 🖋 21:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Copied from the second RfC below: Oppose the use of "racially charged" per WP:EUPHEMISM. It's just a watered-down euphemism for "racist". [3] GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
A) Forgive the strong statement, but I think your categorical/per se description is nonsensical; this is clearly a matter of context and some sources will invariably be using the term as a hedging mechanisms while others may genuinely be suggesting that Trump is not a racist but has stirred the pot (intentional or not) on race--and all manner of variations in between. However, I doubt I can shift your perspective on it, with such a strong !vote. Anyway, more important is B) the "policy" you cite (WP:EUPHEMISM isn't even a content inclusion policy and is completely irrelevant here: it is a tiny little piece of MoS that is concerned with word choice, and thus has no weight when measured against an inclusion issue that needs be judged under WP:V and WP:NPOV.
Euphemisms in fact are fair game in any case where the same or similar language is being used by sources. It's not our place to decide what is coy language disguising a deeper criticism; we evaluate the sources on their face value without filtering them through our own meaning making and assumptions about what the sources "really meant"; that's WP:Original research. Frankly, a lot of sources do say "racist" explicitly, but that is clearly a non-starter for this particular article. So I think its ridiculous to say that this topic shouldn't be mentioned at all just because the proposed language leans more on sources that are a bit more tactful and reserved. Those are the one that are more appropriate here, given the BLP concerns. Snow let's rap 04:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - This sentence is backed by numerous sources. It is accurate, since it addresses widespread perceptions rather than objective facts. I don't accept that "racially charged" is necessarily a euphemism for racism, but perhaps some use it that way.- MrX 🖋 02:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Mentioned below, perhaps there is a better way to frame this. Racist, racially charged, both the same really and the media seems to always play connect the dots when they report these comments and twitter feeds. While it seems forbidden to mention other wording here (oddly) it would be best in keeping with BLP that we stay above the medias efforts to sensationalize and sell copy. Without violating OR it would be best we instead agree with a less condemning approach.--MONGO (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it is is possible to decide on our own subjective interpretaition which is a less more or condemning approach without violating WP:OR by outright definition. Sources are completely allowed to "connect the dots" for themselves and arrive at conclusions. That's what we rely on them for in most instances, and as Wikipedia editors, we don't get to interject our subjective assessments of how well they accomplished that task. Reporting their conclusions is not only not against WP:NPOV, it is a defining requirement of that policy, if there is sufficient WP:WEIGHT to justify the inclusion. Deciding for ourselves that "the media" has "sensaionalized" something is an act of pure editorializing and original research, and not something we are permitted to do in our analysis of whether or not to include content. We faithfully represent the sources, we don't decide for ourselves which ones missed the plot. That's WP:POV by the back door. See for example Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias_in_sources and WP:NPOVS. Snow let's rap 07:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - Don’t be silly. Clearly contrary to WP:LEAD guidances for the opening paragraph, does not pass general guidance of WP:BLP to write conservatively, let alone the specific BLPLEAD or WP:RACIST guidances. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I've spent a decent amount of time weighing my opinion on this addition. I've considered both statements MONGO made below (regarding our limitations given the drastically polarized media reports on the subject), and Snow Rise's reply above. We, as editors of Wikipedia, are tasked with producing neutral, verifiable content that can be referenced in sources. I don't disagree that the addition proposed here can be verified through the sources provided. However, I would also argue that the scope of the material published by sources varies widely based on the sources you read. For example, after a short search, I was able to find two articles that explicitly contradict sources above, such as here and here. For that reason, although I am able to see and weigh both sides, I think that the best solution would simply be to exclude such content from the LEAD of the article altogether. --HunterM267 talk 17:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – This proposal is just WP:WEASELing around consensus #24 which established that the lede should not allude to Trump's purported racism. It's also awful grammar: "Many [things] have been perceived by some as [qualifier]"?? Just frankly say "He is widely considered racist". (But that obviously doesn't have consensus, so say nothing.) — JFG talk 19:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I just don't get this "We either have to call him a racist or never, ever mention that he has said something about race that makes people uncomfortable--we can entertain nothing in between!" argument. I think it's literally the single least rational and least policy consistent of all conceivable editorial approaches to this situation. Snow let's rap 21:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
(Discussion continues below) — JFG talk 22:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my arguments in RfC #2 and I will now explain why I oppose saying "perceived". I don't see why we should include public opinion on individual issues in the lead section of the biography article. See Barack Obama for how Public image of Barack Obama is summarized in it. wumbolo ^^^ 12:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose For a few reasons. First comes off as WP:WEASEL, if you want to call him a racist in the lead just purpose that. Along those lines is also goes against WP:LABEL, clearly calling a BLP racist in the lead falls into contentious label. Finally fails WP:NPOV again can we just quit calling everyone we disagree with a racist alt-right so and so? PackMecEng (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Were he not in politics, then it would probably be a no. But to not mention it in the lead when the overwhelming evidence is that he speaks racism, fans racial hatred and bigotry, and in the role of president has forced the US as a state to engage in racist policies.... Well they will need to invent a new word as whitewashing really doesnt cut it. Its going to be the defining legacy of his presidency. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional support if Caspring's RFC fails. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 02:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This subject has received a tremendous amount of RS coverage and is most certainly leadworthy. I agree with Caspring's proposed simplification. The described by some is unnecessarily wordy and a violation of WP:YESPOV (Avoid stating facts as opinions). (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as stated. I would support if it were simplified and read more like "Some of his comments and actions have been perceived as racially charged." Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose (Summoned by bot) I'm not opposed to the statement but to its proposed placement, which is far too high in the article per WEIGHT. What I think needs to be discussed is whether it should be in the lead at all. My inclination at this point is no. Coretheapple (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support; obviously well-cited and reflects the content of the article. Regarding WP:BLP, it only requires that we have high-quality sources - we're required to reflect them even when they say things that could cast the article's subject in a negative light. Regarding WP:RACIST, the entire purpose of MOS:WORDS is to be cautious about specific wording, not to omit well-cited facts. --Aquillion (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support; so many of the issues that he returns to time and time again (Birtherism, repeated attacks on Obama as an "African-American president", false statistics on Black crime, attacks on immigrants, attacks on public figures for being Latino or being related to Latinos, attacks on NFL racial inequality protesters, the normalizing of White Nationalists, and the labeling of various Black public figures as being of low intelligence) have an obvious racial component. The perceived racial nature of all of these fixations has been well-documented in sources and is ably covered on the Racial views of Donald Trump page. I don't see why something that has become such a staple of his presidential run and presidency should be left out of the intro. --Dankster (talk) 06:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose; agree with Markbassett and JFG. It would violate several policies and guidelines to insert media sensationalist suggestions of racism to a BLP. Anyway, there is good evidence he is not racist, even though he has on occasion said racially inappropriate things. If there is an addition to the lead section alluding to him being a racist then his pardoning of the black boxer jailed for having a white girlfriend should be included, per NPOV.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended comments[edit]

Hunterm267: Yes, where someone is predicating their !vote in a WP:WEIGHT analysis, that's one thing; the sources are unending here and I can see where reasonable people can come to substantially different conclusions about that. Unfortunately, as seems to be constantly happening on this page every time I respond to a random bot notice (of which I've just received my second to this article inside one week!), a lot of people are just arguing for straight up "we know better than them, so we'll judge whether the sources got the situation correct enough to be worth including", aka dyed-in-the-wool WP:original research.
That seems to be an omnipresent feature of this article (coming constantly from editors who are here to be dutiful advocates for the "its obvious" arguments of "the right" and "the left"), and I honestly don't know what to suggest can be done about it, short of some massive house cleaning to remove editors who can't keep their comments focused on fidelity with the sources, but who instead try to do the job of sources by deciding issues for themselves which are as minor as "Trump must be exposed for the lying traitor that he is" or "Trump is needlessly maligned conservative hero who must be protected from the 'lying fake news media'". Now obviously this all reflects the general divide that is out there right now and is not at all surprising, and maybe I ought not be surprised how much of it is aggregating at this particular article. But I'm still discouraged every time I arrive here and see how little challenge the original research is getting. Snow let's rap 21:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

(Continued from survey section) — JFG talk 22:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I just don't get this "We either have to call him a racist or never, ever mention that he has said something about race that makes people uncomfortable--we can entertain nothing in between!" argument. I think it's literally the single least rational and least policy consistent of all conceivable editorial approaches to this situation. Snow let's rap 21:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to explain my stance in a bit more detail. Trump's comments related to race issues have been called out by hundreds of sources, no question about this. He has also been assumed to be a racist by plenty of people interpreting anything he says in the worst possible way, and that's fair game. Now, whenever a new controversial tweet or policy grabs the headlines, the whole "Trump is an awful racist" narrative comes back to the fore, with a recital of his "45-year history of racially-charged statements and actions", and editors re-launch the debate about what should be added to the lede about racism. The current proposal is just twisting words without addressing the core issue: can we call Trump racist? I sure wish we could find a neutral and consensus-approved way of describing Trump's positions on this issue, but we have not yet found any, and the proposed convoluted sentence is surely not going to pass muster. There is nothing partisan about being careful in what we state, and prior discussions have made it clear that this issue is too complex to summarize in the lede section. I will also note that Donald Trump is the only person in the whole history of the world to be granted an article about his "racial views". That is absolutely extraordinary, given the hundreds of unabashed racist people covered at length by this encyclopedia. Where are the racial views of Frederik de Klerk? Where are the racial views of Alfred Rosenberg? Where are the racial views of Hirohito and Shūmei Ōkawa? This fact alone makes me inclined to conclude that Trump only gets this special treatment because of unresolved racial tensions in the United States. There is enough subject matter there for a dozen PhD theses. I have also observed that whenever Trump does something positive towards people of other races than his own, there is virtually no media coverage, and if there is any, it's generally dismissive with the good old "I have black friends" excuse. Meanwhile, what has been lacking is serious, dispassionate commentary about Trump's relations to race issues: it's hard to find because Trump usually acts in a race-agnostic way. Your skin color does not matter to him, he looks at how you behave. Your gender does not matter to him, he looks at whether you help him. Your political party does not matter to him, he looks at whether you approve of him. Your status as a traditional ally or enemy country does not matter to him, he looks at whether you agree with him. Troubling, for sure, and I'd love to read PhD theses and history books that will be written between 2030 and 2050, instead of the clickbait news of the day. — JFG talk 21:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'd disagree that Trump is the only world leader discussed on the encyclopedia who has an article dedicated to his racial stances; they just tend to be labelled differently in other cases, because those racial views for some historical figures developed into outright pogroms or other state action, which tends to capture those issues under a different header. It makes sense to cover Trumps racial perspectives under a more neutral and conservative namespace, that's all. But that's a bit of red herring and not directly relevant to the current content dispute we are talking about with regard to this article. More to the point for our editorial purposes here, it's not our place to decide which reliable sources were sufficiently "dispassionate" in their analysis for us to credit their coverage as "realistic"; anytime an editor finds themselves doing that, it is almost certain that they are engaging in a kind of unpermitted WP:original research. The fact of the matter is, there are reliable sources discussion Trumps relationship to race (indeed, they surely count is in the thousands at this point, even if we excise the sources that are borderline RS) and (as a matter of the most basic widely held point of consensus in the history of this project) it is our job as Wikipedia editors to represent those sources faithfully, not filter them through our own subjective assessments and confirmation bias.
Now, I'm somewhat sympathetic to your argument that it's difficult to get this into the lead in a concise statement which does not prejudice the reader either way, but emphasis on "difficult"--not "impossible". And it's an outright false choice that we have to opt to either describe him as a "racist" or not discuss anything he has said about race whatsoever in the lead. However you parse it, this is a part of the controversy that surrounds the man as an encyclopedic topic--a huge part. And our coverage should not be overly-focused on who Trump believes himself to be or even what he tries to be; it's perfectly fair game (from a WP:WEIGHT standpoint) to say that racial issues are a part of his controversial public image. Indeed, not just fair; it's impossible to give an encyclopedic summary of the man's public life without it. So saying that we should either "call a spade for a spade" and label him a racist or say nothing at all turns every relevant policy in this area on it's head. Snow let's rap 22:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
This is a very interesting conversation, thanks for your remarks. You write that we should not bind ourselves to not discuss anything he has said about race whatsoever, and I agree. There's the rap: what has Trump said about race? Think about it, go perform searches, listen to a bunch of rallies, then come back and tell me what he ever said about race. We have hundreds of people who have said a lot of things about what they imagine they can read in Trump's mind by interpreting his "dog whistles". But has Trump said anything worthy of mention? This was discussed a few months ago when the "Racial views of Donald Trump" article was taking shape. Editors had tremendous difficulty finding any racial views actually expressed by Trump (see Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump/Archive 3#Recent edits - textbook SYNTH and WEASEL). All that was found were platitudes such as "I'm the least racist person you'll ever interview", "racism is evil" and "no matter the color of our skin, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots" (the latter was bizarrely mocked by one editor as alluding to heart surgery).
Incidentally, you may be on the right track with: racial issues are a part of his controversial public image. We may end up finding an appropriate formulation along these lines. — JFG talk 23:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

RfC: Should the summary of Trump's false and controversial statements be updated in the lead?[edit]

Close requested.[4]JFG talk 17:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Should the second paragraph of the lead be updated as follows?


Trump entered the 2016 presidential race as a Republican and defeated sixteen opponents in the primaries. Commentators described his political positions as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements were controversial or false. Trump was elected president in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to have won the election while losing the popular vote. His election and policies have sparked numerous protests.


Trump received extensive free media coverage during his 2016 presidential campaign, defeating sixteen Republican opponents in the primaries. He was elected president in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to have won the election while losing the popular vote. Many of his public remarks have been controversial or false. Commentators have described his political positions as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. His election and policies have sparked numerous protests.

This streamlines some wording, updates the ongoing nature of the false and controversial remarks, and keeps the material in chronological order.

(Note: The above proposal does not preclude the additional wording proposed in the above RfC.)

Please indicate whether you support or oppose the proposed change to the wording (or very similar). If you wish to propose different wording, please start a separate RfC. Thank you. - MrX 🖋 18:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's a diff view of the proposed changes. ~Awilley (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


  • Support Better wording and a little shorter.Casprings (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support for the reasons given by MrX and Casprings. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per my rationale stated in the RfC.- MrX 🖋 02:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - wrong sequence. The second line on commentators is part of the primaries and part of the sequence about his getting higher coverage in the primaries. So moving it to after that makes a hash of the primary section, and creates a confusing ambiguity or false image of when it is associated to either the election or the protests. If a line was associated to either of those it would be in addition to the line 2 bit during the primaries. Frankly, I’m not well disposed to random edits in lead without better explanation than “A or B” just thrown out. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
    When you say "line" I assume you mean sentence, right? That sentence is a general statement that applies from mid-2015 forward. It would be confusing and misleading to leave it between his primary victory and election, as if the policies only applied to his candidacy.- MrX 🖋 12:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
It is referring to the description at the time of primaries prior to the mention of his getting media coverage. That makes a bit of sense. The alternative just abruptly starts by saying he got free media coverage comma defeated sixteen opponents which does not flow or make as much sense. Then the second version ends after his election with controversial statements and political positions then protests - as if the controversial statements starts only after he is in office, instead of being part of he got coverage in primaries. Placement in the order it occurred makes things a bit easier to understand. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - given reports of how many lies that Trump tells in a day is reported on the front page of major papers, it's a very significant. But being a lead, it should be in simpler terms. Use a simple term like "lie" instead of "false statements". Nfitz (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It just doesn't read right to me. It puts "free media coverage" up front as if it was the most important thing, and the structure just seems a little awkward. I'm going to write an alternative version presently. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Article right now seems very biased and this feels like it removes some of that. It's very hard to remain neutral/non-biased with a topic like this, and the current article fails that test for me in numerous places, one of them being right here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikjbagl (talkcontribs) 17:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional support as secondary to my preferred by Scjessey - see below. --HunterM267 talk 17:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose (both proposed versions) – I still fail to see anything wrong with the second paragraph as it stands. Almost each word of it has been parsed through hundreds of man-hours and megabytes of discussion. Nothing of substance has changed: Trump is still blunt, controversial, populist and creative with facts. Re-shuffling sentences for sport has zero value. — JFG talk 21:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
It's outdated. The proposal obviously does more than re-shuffling sentences. Do you have any serious reason for opposing the proposed wording?- MrX 🖋 11:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Read your own proposal again: it literally just re-shuffles existing sentences, here they are with one word per sentence:
  • Current: Primaries, Positions, Media, Controversial, Victory, Stats, Protests
  • Proposed: Media, Primaries, Victory, Stats, Controversial, Positions, Protests
Nothing to change, really. Nothing outdated either. This paragraph is a condensed narrative of the two years during which Trump rose to power. Those facts won't change. We could do without the extended presidential stats, but readers seem to enjoy this. — JFG talk 04:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@JFG: I think the primary change, which is a bit difficult to see in the diff and is unclear in the proposal, is that the "false statements" bit is removed from a sentence about the campaign and is moved to after the "Victory" sentence, implying there were false statements during the presidency as well. The verb tense also changes from past ("were") to present perfect ("have been"). Correct me if I'm wrong, MrX. ~Awilley (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
If the main purpose is to indicate that Trump has continued to utter false and controversial statements after he was elected, a much simpler RfC could be called. Regardless, this paragraph focuses on Trump's campaign and election, I don't see a benefit in conflating events that happened during his presidency, which is the focus of the following paragraph. — JFG talk 15:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Pointing out a presidential candidate received free media coverage is a little the sky is blue. Yes it was more than others, but it is still trivia. PackMecEng (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
What does your comment have to do with this proposal? Free media coverage is already in the current version and it already enjoys consensus.- MrX 🖋 11:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The extensive free coverage bit is out of place. It reads as if it was the deciding factor in the primaries, if not the general. While it was certainly a factor, it would probably be controversial to say it was undoubtedly the deciding one.LM2000 (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The "free media coverage" piece might have been leadworthy when it was added, but at this point it should be removed in light of all of the more leadworthy stuff that has developed since then. Pushing it to the opening sentence of the paragraph is a step in the wrong direction. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support; seems like a broad improvement. The amount of press coverage he received (which seems to be the only controversial part) is a major topic that has extensive coverage in the article, cited to a wide variety of high-quality sources; it's entirely appropriate to lead in with it. --Aquillion (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I should mention, I'm less than familar with his political campaign (I'm from the United Kingdom), but which source actually states his win was "a surprise?" The phrase "many of his public statements were controversial or false." seems to be a bit strong (and certainly would need to be written in great depth in the target article). The proposed change simply seems to be for the removal of "populist, protectionist, and nationalist.", which if he is stated as being this, I fail to see what removing this from the lede helps. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The sentence, "Trump received extensive free media coverage during his 2016 presidential campaign, defeating sixteen Republican opponents in the primaries" implies that Trump received extensive free media coverage only during the Republican primaries. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @A Quest For Knowledge: Much time has passed, so it may not be obvious that a different version of this is being considered (see below). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Alternative language[edit]

Here's my effort. It slightly reworks the first couple of MrX's sentences:

Entering the 2016 presidential election as a Republican with a campaign that received extensive free media coverage, Trump defeated sixteen Republican opponents in the primaries. He was elected president in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to have won the election while losing the popular vote. Many of his public remarks have been controversial or false. Commentators have described his political positions as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. His election and policies have sparked numerous protests.

-- Scjessey (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak support as a second choice, if my proposal does not gain consensus. It's an improvement over what we currently have, but I believe my version is more narrative. I'm especially not fond of starting a paragraph in passive voice.- MrX 🖋 12:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, I could rewrite it to avoid the passive voice in the opening sentence and shift it to the second to make it flow better:

Trump entered the 2016 presidential election as a Republican with a campaign that received extensive free media coverage. After defeating sixteen Republican opponents in the primaries, he was elected president in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to have won the election while losing the popular vote. Commentators have described his political positions as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. Many of his public remarks have been controversial or false, and his election and policies have sparked numerous protests.

Is that any better? (edit: swapped things around at the end a bit) -- Scjessey (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Drop the word "controversial" as "controversial" is unremarkable. Rewrite as "Many of his public remarks have been false." I am not saying I support the proposed wording; I am simply criticizing it. Bus stop (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not bothered by "controversial", but you should drop the word "false". It is a blatant and unwarranted statement of bias - not something an encyclopaedia is supposed to do. -- Jim Pleiades Hawkins (talk)
The "controversial" discussion is in a different thread. Trump has made many remarkable controversial statements that are not false. A couple of days ago, for example, he said he regarded the European Union as a "foe". It is not a "false" statement, but it is certainly controversial (and alarming to any sane people). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
what sane people are you referring to the sane people who think separating children from their criminal parents is comparable to the nazis separating children from their parents to murder them real sane people understand that there is no comparison and that the eu is a foe on trade like Trump said עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@AmYisroelChai: I'm referring to the sane people who know how to use punctuation and letter cases in a comment, mostly. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
so not to the insane who think the mass murder of millions of people is the same as arresting people who cross the border illegally and since when does punctuation and letter case matter in a comment עם ישראל חי (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Scjessey—please comment on content rather than editors, as per WP:TPG#YES: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Bus stop (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@Bus stop: At what point did I comment on editors? I mentioned nobody. Move along, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Scjessey—you referred to "the sane people who know how to use punctuation and letter cases in a comment". Bus stop (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) But it is illogical to join the two concepts. "Controversial" statements are almost the norm. They are necessary at times. But "false" statements are worth taking note of, even in the lede. A president sometimes has to say controversial things. Is the whole country of one mind on all matters? But should a president tell big fat lies? If he does, that may be worthy of inclusion in his biography. I think we take falsehoods seriously, while the controversial position is understood to sometimes be the hallmark of a great statesman. I'm not arguing for the "great statesman" characterization. But when you link "controversial" to "false" you are creating a logical inconsistency. Bus stop (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
"False" alone does not tell the whole story, as per Scjessey's example above, and "controversial" is a compromise word for the remainder of it. Would you prefer "divisive" or "inflammatory"? ―Mandruss  15:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
"Controversy", "divisive", "inflammatory" all refer to relatively unremarkable concepts. "False" is entirely different. Statesmen are not supposed to lie to us. But they very often have to take "controversial" positions. That is fairly normal. Bus stop (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@Bus stop: It is not "fairly normal" for a president to make controversial comments, or at least it wasn't until Trump took office. Usually, such comments are limited to the really crazy members of the House of Reprehensibles (the gentleman from the 1st congressional district of Texas, for example). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@Scjessey: Untrue at all. The constituency of a representative of a country holds very different views on a variety of questions, and the way forward is not always clear. The present is always murky and the path chosen by a president is almost invariably going to seem controversial in the thick of besetting issues. Bus stop (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Semantics. It's "fairly normal" in the sense of the word that Bus stop is assuming—particularly in contemporary U.S. politics. But words often have different and nuanced meanings, and we're using a different meaning of the word. As I've said, if you want something more precise, it's divisive or inflammatory. Neither of those is "fairly normal" for a president, by any definition or sense of the words. Presidents are not generally known to be divisive or inflammatory in their speech, and in fact until Trump they were expected to be the opposite. ―Mandruss  17:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
In the context of a sentence making a reference to "false" statements, even "divisive" and "inflammatory" are a world apart. There should be a full stop between any assertion of falsehood and assertions relating to the far more mild qualities of being controversial, inflammatory, or divisive. Bus stop (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
It's better, but I don't really care for "Trump entered the 2016 presidential election as a Republican", which is redundant because he won the Republican primaries, and since he won the presidential election, it's obvious he entered the campaign. That's why I wrote "Trump received extensive free media coverage during his 2016 presidential campaign, defeating sixteen Republican opponents in the primaries.", because it avoids redundancy.- MrX 🖋 15:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The fact that he entered as a Republican (having previously run for a different party and also been a Democrat) is noteworthy, so perhaps the second appearance of "Republican" is the one to lose:

Trump entered the 2016 presidential election as a Republican with a campaign that received extensive free media coverage. After defeating sixteen opponents in the primaries, he was elected president in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to have won the election while losing the popular vote. Commentators have described his political positions as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. Many of his public remarks have been controversial or false, and his election and policies have sparked numerous protests.

How's that? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I would support that.- MrX 🖋 15:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
It makes no sense to say he "entered the 2016 presidential election as a Republican with a campaign that received extensive free media coverage. How did he receive extensive free media coverage? Why did he receive free media coverage? By what means or by what mechanism did he receive free media coverage? Explain what made this free media coverage possible. Bus stop (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
This is for the lead where we summarize significant points. The details are in the article.- MrX 🖋
(edit conflict) @Bus stop: Once again, you are arguing about something that has already been discussed and decided upon in previous threads. The lede is summary of the article, and the article discusses this matter here. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Then obviously leave it out of the lede, MrX. The reader should not be told he received "extensive free media coverage" without further explanation immediately following that assertion. Bus stop (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
That material already has consensus. Feel free to start a new RfC or discussion if you think it should be removed. This is not the place.- MrX 🖋 16:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Support change as proposed by Scjessey. --HunterM267 talk 17:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

Didn't every candidate receive "free media coverage"? I mean, the media was covering the election, no?--MONGO (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

As mentioned by MrX above - this is not particularly the place for that discussion. However, I believe to answer your question, "free media coverage" is best defined in this article, as such: Like all candidates, he benefits from what is known as earned media: news and commentary about his campaign on television, in newspapers and magazines, and on social media. Earned media typically dwarfs paid media in a campaign. The big difference between Mr. Trump and other candidates is that he is far better than any other candidate — maybe than any candidate ever — at earning media.. It's also discussed here, here, and here. My support !vote was purely made in the scope of a re-wording of content that already exists, and to change that content would likely require a separate RfC. --HunterM267 talk 17:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Again—if you can't explain it, you don't include it (in the lede). Bus stop (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
It is so blindingly obvious that it doesn't need explanation. It's already cited in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
It makes little sense to say he "received extensive free media coverage" without additionally saying what arrangement made this possible. I realize it is "cited in the article" but the lede also needs an explanation because that is a surprising assertion. It raises a question. The answer to that implicitly raised question should be supplied in the lede even if only by brief allusion to the mechanism that facilitates the "extensive free media coverage". Bus stop (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Ridiculous. It does need explanation or expansion in the lede. It was absolutely not a "surprising assertion" to anyone in 2015-2016 who had a pulse. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Scjessey—it makes no sense to say he "entered the 2016 presidential election as a Republican with a campaign that received extensive free media coverage because "free media" includes traditional media when the reference is to social media. In this source we read "Trump's canny use of social media helped elect him" and "his strategic use of social media propelled him to the presidency" and "Trump, who according to Reuters tweeted more than any other candidate in the presidential race, amassed 4 million more followers on Twitter than Hillary Clinton and 5 million more on Facebook" and "The social media company SocialFlow calculated during the campaign that Trump was getting more than three times more free exposure on social media than Clinton". Trump himself said "The fact that I have such power in terms of numbers with Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc., I think it helped me win all of these races where they're spending much more money than I spent". Repeatedly, in the body of the article, as well as in the lede of the article, the reference is to "free media coverage". That is not precise enough, in fact it is misleading. All of those references should be changed to "free social media coverage". I realize we have a section in the article called Social media and a separate article called Donald Trump on social media. But that does not excuse the repeated references to "free media" when what is meant is "free social media". Let us be precise in what we are saying. Bus stop (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
"Free media" does not mean "social media" at all. "Free media" is any media you get that you don't pay for. Because Trump continuously said outrageous stuff, he got extensive media coverage that his opponents did not get. Anyway, we already discussed this and the "free media" language has consensus. We are you re-litigating it? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry Hunterm267...I see my outdent made it look like I was replying to your vote! but was actually just addressing the choice of wording. Regardless, I thank you for the expansion on this matter but also agree with Bus stop that this might not be understood as a lede issue unless we footnote it.--MONGO (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Opening last paragraph[edit]

The opening section has more paragraphs than the usual four. Due to the large amount of information relating to Trump, I understand it is difficult to reduce it down without losing key information. However, I feel that that the Mueller investigation is not yet notable enough for the lead as it has not yet affected Trump directly. Obviously this may change in the future. I propose the paragraph is removed to streamline the page. Would be interested to hear your views. Nonsuchpark (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE - comment actually added by Epsomathlete Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Masnafort, Trump former campaign chair on trial, George Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, pleaded guilty, Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, pleaded guilty, Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide plea deal. Trump tweets and talks about the investigation nearly daily. It’s difficult to see how this isn’t highly relevant and notable. O3000 (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Agree with O3000. Define "affected directly". You could say Watergate didn't affect Nixon directly until he resigned, and Monicagate didn't affect Clinton directly until he was impeached (was he affected directly if he was acquitted?). But, had Wikipedia existed then, both subjects would have become lead-worthy in the respective articles long before those events occurred. ―Mandruss  23:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Mueller investigation has very little to do with Trump's life, other than becoming one of the many things to annoy him greatly. This is very relevant to Presidency of Donald Trump, though. Trying to connect a 2005 tax fraud case and a lie told to the FBI by a Trump ex-employee is quite a stretch. Keeping it in there is non-neutral and it should be stricken. Same reason we don't mention the Clinton-Russia-Simpson-Steele-Ohr dossier in Hillary Clinton's lead. Without strong evidence of criminality, that would be very unfair to Mrs. Clinton, as we don't yet know if she and the DNC violated any laws with their purchase from Russia, and it's probably not a significant event in the woman's life. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I'll support the OP's proposal, though I expect that account is likely to be blocked for other reasons. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • OTHER: The WP:LEADLENGTH guide that lead should be no more than 4 paragraphs is a general guideline but not an absolute rule. The typical for Presidents (from Nixon on) seems to be opening para, life before presidency, presidency, and a close of evaluation plus life after. I would suggest to reduce by OTHER ways of merger and tighter writing. That Mueller bit logically would not be a separate para but instead is part of the para about his presidency. Otherwise I would suggest the Presidency para could and should be rewritten more tightly at lines as things keep arriving, to have it just identify the major items and eliminate smaller bits as more shows up. For example, reduce the 3 lines of travel ban to just name the travel ban without mention of legal challenges as a lower detail. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the astonishing claim the Mueller investigation isn't notable enough for the lead. It absolutely has affected Trump directly, and it is biographically enormously significant. It has put him and his family in legal jeopardy, it has led to several members of Trump's campaign and administration being indicted/charged/convicted/fired, with others being threatened with firing, and has led to a near continuous stream of rally and Twitter-based attacks from Trump on our systems of government, justice, and intelligence gathering. Also, the investigation spans a much longer period than the presidency. Indeed, the focus is more on the campaign, so Mark's idea of folding it into the paragraph on the presidency is a non-starter. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The Mueller probe is clearly one of the most notable ongoing events in Trump's presidency, even if he is not personally indicted. Besides, the guideline on 4 paragraphs is not even violated here; I wouldn't count the intro sentence as a full paragraph. — JFG talk 12:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This article is Trump's BLP, not the Presidency of Donald Trump article. I see the confusion, intentional or not, daily at this article and this article's talk page. Not sure why the concept of the two being completely different animals is so hard for some to grasp. That's not finger-pointing, it's honest confusion on my part. To me it's black and white. The man is 72 years old. He lived 70 years of life prior to becoming president, literally more than 85% of it not related in any way to politics. This article and the lead are supposed to highlight the span of his life, not the last two to three years years since he announced his candidacy (or even when the "birtherism" thing started). Go with the facts and statistics, folks - not emotions. Please. -- ψλ 15:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I think I would go up one paragraph. Everything south of "During his presidency..." is over-detailed political POV for this article's lead. No comment on content, just location. Sammy D III (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is like saying that we should remove references to Parkinson's from the Michael J. Fox because we don't know whether he'll die from it or from an unrelated cause. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
This talk page has a: "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES" flag on the top. The first line of the second box is" "Want to add new information about Donald Trump? Most often, it should not go here. Please consider choosing the most appropriate article..." Again :"No comment on content, just location." Sammy D III (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Should the Trump Administration's effect on the outcome of the 2018 midterms be mentioned in the article?[edit]

This is going to be an issue in about...oh, three months now so I wanted to get out ahead of it: should the article include any mention of the Trump Administration's alleged role in who gets voted into congressional office in November 2018? Historically, the US public tends to vote more heavily for the other party in the mid terms, but since Trump is controversial (or perhaps has never been given a fair chance by the public or the media) I feel like getting a feel for this now so we can act approrpeiately when the time comes. What say ye? TomStar81 (Talk) 16:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we should only note the outcome of the election (i.e. do Republicans maintain control of the Senate and House), and not mention Trump's purported impact on the races, unless Trump is identified as having a major impact by RS. We can't know until November. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
In the article? Probably. (Of course, until the midterms happen, it's impossible to know for sure). In the lead section: probably not, at least not immediately. I feel I can say definitively I won't support it in the lead in 2018, regardless of the election outcome, even if it's a shock 100-seat swing for either party. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
My understanding is that the question regards whether this information should be added in November. It's obviously premature to add anything now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • No. It is WP:SPECULATION at this time, but this is BLP, and the election of others is WP:OFFTOPIC as not biographical material on him. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait until something happens We should not speculate on what his influence will be on the upcoming congressional elections. If he exerts a clear influence that is supported by reliable sources, then it will be mentioned in this article. There is no reason to act as if we have a deadline, as extended confirmed users can edit this article at any time. I understand that Donald Trump is a very controversial man. However, this is the very reason that we must be careful not to be overzealous in what we put in the article. It must be relevant and reasonable to include in the main article, rather than one of the subarticles. The influence that he may, or may not, have on the upcoming elections may be better suited to the article on his presidency, rather than his biographical article itself. ―Susmuffin Talk 06:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Impossible to say at this stage. In this case, "getting out ahead" is just premature speculation. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • No, WP:CRYSTAL. O3000 (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Is planning ahead sort of prejudicial? The first paragraph sort of implies a bias (which way doesn't matter). Sammy D III (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • It does not imply bias. The original poster is simply thinking ahead to what seems to be a likely shift in political control. Let's not make false accusations of bias, even with subtle language. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I believe "(or perhaps has never been given a fair chance by the public or the media)" implies a political position. I did not comment on it other than say it might be there. I stand behind my post. Sammy D III (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC).
  • @Sammy D III: Insofar as it relates to this article, I'm just attempting to get an informal feel for whether people think the material deserves a mention here. I personally feel it doesn't because there are other article on or related to Trump's president that are in better position to cover the relationship between the US President and the US Congress. Ideally, I'd move for the information to be presented in its entirely in that article 116th United States Congress since that Congress is going to inherit the men and women elected in November, so there would be ample space to discuss whatever role Trump did or did not play in the elections there while keeping this article focused on Trump the person. I'm certain when the time comes there will be a full fledged RFC on the matter somewhere (here most likely since the consensus list is based on this talk page), but nothing says we can't test the waters by asking the community ahead of time. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@TomStar81: I am sorry I miss-understood your first post (also that it took me so long to notice this one). I thought you were talking specifically, not generally. I agree that probably none of it belongs here (as I just said in post above). I also confused the "lead" (above) for the article in total (here?).
I'm sorry if it looked like an attack, I just used a sentence from anybody as an example. I have enough real enemies already, I'm not trying to recruit any more. I hope you have a nice day/night. Sammy D III (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It looks like to me there is a clear consensus to wait and see what actually happens before making a decision. The reminder of Trump having other articles has also been brought up. No comment on whether the OP was trying to be biased or impose a political position. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Apologies if appropriate. I was trying to make a vague example, not attack anybody. Nobody is pushing politics here. Sammy D III (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Probably The mid-term elections will be important; whether the GOP is able to retain their majority or not will obviously affect Trump's ability to pass legislation in the second half of his first term. Not to mention this will affect impeachment efforts. Also, I don't have a problem with User:Snooganssnoogans asking ahead of time to get a feel for what editors are thinking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Meh, no. It opens the door to yet another universe of speculation, tweets, comments, responses, etc. Of course the midterms are going to be important, but so are a lot of other things that are planned but haven't happened yet. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • No WP:CRYSTAL, anyone? Wikipedia still isn't news and isn't on a deadline. If there's a documented effect and such is supported by data and statistics reported by reliable sourcespost on November 7, 2018, it can go into the article then, but not before. Besides, this is the Donald Trump article, not the Presidency of Donald Trump article. The question re: midterms is more appropriate there, not here. Even then, my response would remain the same. -- ψλ 17:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • No to any advance planing. React to what has happened. Couldn't discussing and speculating prior to an event can affect the event? Sammy D III (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, it can. And likely would. Can't have any of that coming from Wikipedia. -- ψλ 18:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Have to add that to Observer effects. O3000 (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's not the most absolute case of WP:CRYSTAL ever, as we can certainly cite a wealth of WP:RS which are already speculating about the impact Trump's notoriety will have upon the elections, and have been for some time. However, as a matter of WP:WEIGHT in this highly important and crowded article, I just don't see a good argument for the inclusion until such time as said impact has manifested (whatever it turns out to be). Even then, there may be a strong case for omitting that information here, in favour of hilighting it only in Presidency of Donald Trump--but that's a bridge which can be crossed when we get to it. Snow let's rap 23:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


Why are there so many categories.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Because Donald Trump has had many diverse activities during his lifetime, and because several of those have attracted a fair amount of RS coverage. That being said, there are occasionally attempts to push borderline labelings of Trump into the article's categories. Feel free to suggest removal of things you deem WP:NON-DEFINING. — JFG talk 17:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
mmm propose comparing Categories of other presidents, to at least make some equivalent considerations. e.g. Add ... American Protestants, 20th century American writers, Wharton school alumni. Markbassett (talk) 06:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

RFCs on Russian interference in the 2018 election[edit]

As this page is far more active than WT:WikiProject Politics, I'll notify this page that there are RFCs open at Talk:United States elections, 2018, Talk:United States House of Representatives elections, 2018, and Talk:United States Senate elections, 2018 regarding how Russian interference in the 2018 United States elections should be discussed on those pages. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Wording for sentence in lead on racial stance[edit]

Per the close of this RfC, I added "Many of his comments and actions have been perceived as racially charged." to the lead; I expect the wording of this to get discussed/modified a lot, so I'm preemptively starting this discussion; my own preference is actually for something like "Many of his comments have been criticized as racist, which he has denied." as I proposed 6 months back. That IMO is better because it is clearer and avoids the vague/euphemistic "racially charged". Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

As the initiator of the RfC, I support the current wording proposed in the RfC ("Many of his comments and actions have been perceived as racially charged.") I would also support "Many of his comments and actions have been racially charged." per several arguments in the RfC. I'm still not convinced that we should use the term "racist", but I'm open to persuasion. If we do add "criticized as racist" I don't think that we should add that "he has denied" in the lead. It goes without saying and would be better covered in the body of the article.- MrX 🖋 13:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
(vaguely (edit conflict) - also struck out most of my initial) - I reread that RfC and sources and racially charged or a variant does seem most preferred by sources, so I guess that's what we'll go with. Do you think there should be "perceived by some" though, which is what you actually proposed in the RfC? I support dropping that "by some" per the sources not qualifying their statements on race controversy with that. One could even drop "perceived", or use "were racially controversial".. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
If we are going to do it there are kind of two things that needs to be updated. The qualifiers like many and perceived should be change per WP:WEASEL. Also per WP:PUBLICFIGURE " If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported", so while it may be a given that he would deny it, we are required to report it. PackMecEng (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Actually, while it is true we are "required to report" his denial, we already do this in the body of the article. We need not do so in the lede. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I saw that as well, just seems a bit off to exclude it in the first and most prominent mention of it. PackMecEng (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
It's also debatable whether it's an allegation or an observation.- MrX 🖋 17:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
An allegation based off observation then? But either way, does it matter as far as BLP is concerned? PackMecEng (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I made the wording in the lead match the precise wording of the RfC (including "by some") - but I do support dropping "by some". Hoping to get a consensus for the removal of that Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with the proposed wording "Many of his comments and actions have been perceived as racially charged." Leave out "by some"; that adds nothing and virtually demands a [who?] tag. We don't have to use the exact wording at the start of the RfC; there were several suggestions for other wordings during the discussion and there was no consensus for that particular version. I strongly oppose changing it to "racist" since most of our sources do not use that highly inflammatory word. Anyhow the sources do not describe his actual beliefs (and are not capable of doing so) - just his words and actions. --MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
While I wouldn't say there was particular consensus for that wording or that we necessarily have to use the wording of the start RfC, I think it is best here for something so contentious to have a specific wording as a "Current Consensus", and so I chose the one at the beginning of the RfC for now that per the RfC opener was what was specifically being "supported" or "opposed" on; hopefully we can relatively quickly get a consensus to remove "by some" and update current consensus, linking to this discussion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I think the WP:RSes support simply using the word racist. High quality WP:RS's agree. For example, see Donald Trump’s Racism: The Definitive List . If the standard is not what WP:RSes use, what is it? I would ask those who oppose using the term racist, when does your opinion change? If next week, a tape comes out in which trump uses the word nigger to describe African Americans, which may happen, is that a high enough standard to drop the use of racially charged? At some point, the use of racial charged is not neutral. It is a Wikipedia:Weasel word. It stops being WP:NPV and starts to display a point of view. I think we are already there. I wonder what is the standard for other editors?Casprings (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I think "racially charged" works just fine for now. We can always look at the language again if it turns out Trump's been recorded using racial epithets. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
The USA today article is a blog post and The Guardian article is quoting others, not saying in their voice for racist. PackMecEng (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence that the USA today article is a blog post; the author is listed as "Christal Hayes, USA TODAY". And of course both articles cite others rather than saying it in their own voice, which could only happen in an op-ed anyhow. But then, we would not say it in our own voice either. We would say "have been perceived as..." or "have been described as" or some such wording. Note that I am speaking theoretically; I am not yet to the point of wanting to use the word "racist" in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
@MelanieN: Look at the URL it is part of their onpolitics section. If you do a search of "usa today on politics" you get "OnPolitics | USA TODAY's politics blog" first result. Correct we do not state it in our voice just like they do not state it in their voice as fact. PackMecEng (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I looked through that list, and I only saw three people specifically insulted on intelligence: Maxine Waters ("Low I.Q"; black woman), Mika Brzezinski ("Low I.Q"; white woman), and Don Lemon ("The dumbest man on television"; black man); this seems to perfectly support the conclusions of the RS (which are the only things that matter, anyhow): "But whereas the likes of James Comey, John McCain and Mitt Romney receive a smorgasbord of other insults, the congresswoman Maxine Waters and TV host Don Lemon, both of whom are African American, appear to be denigrated for their intelligence alone." Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
This is a good albeit outdated list, and I had to look hard to find a black person he called dumb. But women, yes; he called a lot of women dumb. But women have nothing to do with this discussion, which is about race. wumbolo ^^^ 11:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE - that prior rfc was not really enthusiastic 10 Opposed, 8 in favor (2 of those conditional), and now its being rendered invalid by immediately reopening the language. I’m for instead let’s justrevert to consensus 24 until folks figure out what language to propose and take it to rfc. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

"by some"[edit]

That was easy! --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
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.

Just to focus the discussion on whether there is or is not consensus to say "by some" in this sentence, so we can at least reach agreement on that point: Should the sentence say "have been perceived by some..." ? Include or not? --MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Do not include "by some." --MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Do not include per my comments above Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Do not include ("by some") - Unnecessary and vague quantification.- MrX 🖋 18:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Do not include - Superfluous. Readers understand that perceptions are never unanimous—or even close. That's why they are called perceptions. It goes without saying. ―Mandruss  18:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Do not include per others. Vague and unneeded.Casprings (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Do not include – Weaseling, bad grammar, and begs the question "by whom?" — JFG talk 19:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I've removed it, per the fact that no-one wants it :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:33, 16 August 2018 (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.
  • Identify who said it and who opposed it per NPOV, or alternatively mention the flip views as admirers would have it if their POV is not in the same playground. And meanwhile take out the whole line until things are figured out ... a rfc is for a specific wording, and changes to language should have been IN the rfc. This change is contrary to the consensus #24 or #30. And p.s. please do not hat things within hours. That is unnecessary and just winds up incomplete. Markbassett (talk) 05:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Racist versus racially charged[edit]

Same idea as above. Should the sentence include the wording racist versus racially charged.Casprings (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Racist Both as per Scjessey below. As OP. One, it is supported by WP:RSes. Two, "racially charged" is a Wikipedia:Weasel words. The people making these comments, per WP:RSes are saying that these are racist comments. Not "racially charged". Wikipedia should not take on the role of making less of that. Just state the reality. I would ask anyone to go to the article on Racism and explain why we should use the wording "racially charged". Call a spade a spade We should be straight forward and match what WP:RSes are saying.Casprings (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Changed my vote to reflect what I think was a good suggestion. However, I think we should remove the passive voice. I would reword.

      Commentators described many of his comments as racist or racially charged.

      Casprings (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
      • "Commentators...comments"? 0;-D Aside from the awkwardness, I think in this case the passive is preferable. "Commentators" sounds like the description is just coming from media talking heads, but in fact it is coming from everyone from journalists to politicians to celebrities of every stripe to ordinary people. Anyhow, this subsection is supposed to be just focused on "racist vs. racially charged"; I think we should not introduce other changes here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
        • Oh, and don't forget it is "comments and actions". --MelanieN (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Racially charged. "Racist" is a very strong accusation - virtually fighting words. To say something that negative in a BLP we need stronger evidence than we currently have, and more unanimity among sources. Trump's racial positions are never overt, they are inferred - through things he says ("they're bringing crime, they're rapists", "she has a very low IQ", "shithole countries", "I want immigrants from Norway"), his unwillingness to condemn people and groups who are frankly racist, the enthusiasm that racists (e.g. David Duke) feel toward him. "Racially charged" is a good way of describing these things without crossing over the BLP line to say "he is a racist". (BTW in discussing racial issues, "call a spade a spade" is probably not the best idiom to use. 0;-D ) --MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Racially charged Racist or racially charged. Personally, I think Trump is a racist. I think he’s a lot of –ists. But, I think it’s a charged term in itself, is difficult to use as a descriptor if it is not self-identified, ignores his long known history of making statements for some manner of gain that may or may not have anything to do with his personal beliefs, reverses himself constantly, and it’s, frankly, difficult to determine any of his personal beliefs. There is little question that he makes use of the racism of others (which IMO is actually worse than being a racist oneself). I just think we have access to language that can describe his relationship with whatever people classify as “races” without using that particular word. O3000 (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Altered my vote after Scjessey’s suggestion as I think it is a better fit to RS. O3000 (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Considering the just two deleted edits, WP:NOTFORUM O3000 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What about "race realist"? (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Never seen that in any source covering the subject. What does this even mean?? — JFG talk 00:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
It's Scientific racism. So yeah... PackMecEng (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
It's a synonym for racist and let's not encourage trolls. O3000 (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Racist just because it's unclear sometimes does not mean it's never clear. wumbolo ^^^ 09:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Neither - I've been reading up about the difference between "racist" and "racially charged" and there are many sources by prominent black and Latino commentators who regard the latter as a euphemism designed to soften the language in order to prevent white people being too offended. I can understand their point of view, and it does seem to be shared by some of the Wikipedia editors on this article. So I propose a compromise:

    Many of his comments and actions have been described as racist or racially charged.

    We have sources for both, so let's take it out of Wikipedia's voice and use both. That should satisfy proponents of either description, should it not? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Neither - I agree with Scjessey, the best way of wording is as he suggested. We need to go with the sources which use both descriptions.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Neither because of NPOV issues. I have read into this issue more and considered the article body of text this sentence is summarising. Sources describe Trump’s comments as either racist or racially insensitive (e.g., due to rejection of political correctness) and Trump denies he is racist. Therefore describing the comments as either racist or racially charged downplays the racially insensitive text in the article body and also if we are going to apply a very damaging label of racist in the lede then we need to include Trump’s denials, per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
"Race realism" trolling, IP blocked — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acroterion (talkcontribs) 11:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Race Realist. It means, among other things, acknowledging that the races have different levels of intelligence and aggression genetically (as well as every other trait) and that letting people into your country who have lower intelligence or higher aggression than the national average is a self-destructive act. Things like that. True but "politically incorrect". Another example would be to say that the white race is being bred out of existence through immigration of non-whites into every white nation and that this should be stopped, not only because it's incredibly monstrous towards whites who want to save their race but because it's destroying human diversity. (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Wow. Where would you even start... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'll start by saying that's an ignorant, racist comment from our IP contributor. And Trump is an expert at pandering to the kind of people who make comments like that. HiLo48 (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I think I could accept the both version suggested by Scjessey. --MelanieN (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • both seems fine to me, acknowledges the wide sourcing that uses "racist" while also the incidents described as "racially charged" Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Racially charged. They may be Wikipedia:Weasel words but how can "racist" not be insulting (especially to his supporters)? I personally think most of these last two paragraphs shouldn't be in the lead here at all (I couldn't find the WP link). Sammy D III (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Being insulting to someone is not reason to avoid saying something if it's true. HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, of course. But if the two words are interchangeable, as they may be here, why use the inflammatory one in the lead? Maybe moot point, "both" is looking good, but if it's either or... (Sorry Mandruss, I don't know where to put this or what you mean, I should leave). Sammy D III (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I mean the argument that we should avoid insulting people has no basis in Wikipedia policy. (And generally your comment would follow mine below, with the same indent level as mine, since they are both replies to HiLo48's comment and I posted mine first.)Mandruss  23:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm struggling to see the policy connections for several of the arguments here, this is just one of the more obvious cases. ―Mandruss  23:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Sammy D III For concern on insults maybe WP:LABEL and WP:RACIST suits, or in wider sense WP:Attack page or the WP:BLP guides to be restrained ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Both as proposed by Scjessey would be an improvement over the current text. As I mentioned above, I still have not seen a strong argument for 'racist' by itself. - MrX 🖋 20:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Racist per WP:NOTCENSORED. "Racially charged" is a euphemism, plus many RS use "racist". K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
    WP:NOTFREESPEECH. wumbolo ^^^ 12:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Racially charged if anything at all. How many times must we have this conversation when nothing substantially new has happened? If anything it has gone the other way in some areas. But I digress. PackMecEng (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. "Racially charged" may seem like a reasonable compromise to some people, but I have to say I think it's terrible and that something else should be used instead. What precisely does "racially charged" mean? It is an ambiguous phrase that has to be interpreted by the reader and it does not belong in an encyclopedia that is meant to be clearly written and accessible. If what is actually meant is "racially insensitive", then just say that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment "Racially charged" is simply non-encyclopaedic. It has no clear meaning. Trump almost certainly IS a racist, but he is even more a populist. He says what he thinks the audience he is targeting at any particular time wants to hear. That means he panders to and encourages racists, saying seemingly racist things, when he wants their support. HiLo48 (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
@HiLo48: In the version I have put forward, we are not saying "racially charged" is a thing or not. We are saying that the term has been used by commentators (rightly or wrongly). In fact, there is great sourcing for racially charged, racially insensitive and racist all over the internet. "Racially charged" is certainly the term most used by reliable sources, with "racist" a close second and "racially insensitive" a distant third, as far as I can determine. Wikipedia need not say which term we think is most appropriate, and I believe this compromise will get support from most editors here. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Then maybe some words like you have just written here need to be in the article. Words about the frequency with which those labels are applied to Trump. But can that be done with original research? You see, "racially charged" is still a nebulous term, and I doubt if any observer of the sources has published a count of its usage that we can refer to, and a definition. Is it in any dictionary? HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
You don't need to come here to ask if a word is in a dictionary, you can find the answer yourself. Multiple dictionaries provide online access. For example, Merriam-Webster "charged" definition 2: "capable of arousing strong emotion : a politically charged subject". Add the modifier "racially" and you have: "capable of arousing strong emotion about racial issues". ―Mandruss  22:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Our job is to reflect what sources say. If they use a term that we think is nebulous, that's the term we use. It is not up to us to decide it is nebulous or to try to interpret it for the reader. --MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The lead states, at present, that, "Many of his comments and actions have been perceived as racially charged." That is not the same thing as saying that commentators have used the specific term "racially charged" to describe Trump's comments and actions. The fact that the words "charged" and "racially" both have meanings does not mean that the expression "racially charged" has a clear, properly understood meaning. HiLo48 is correct that the phrase has no clear meaning, and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Readers of the article are likely to be totally unclear about its intended meaning, and it should not be used if some more easily understandable term can be used instead. Despite what Mandruss states above, there is no certainty whatever that readers will understand that the term is supposed to mean, "capable of arousing strong emotion about racial issues". There is no need to use an unclear expression when the lead could instead simply state, in so many words, that Trump made comments seen as arousing emotion about racial issues. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
@FreeKnowledgeCreator: What "so many words" do you propose? "Racially insensitive", which you mentioned above, does not say the same thing as "racially charged", nor does it say what RS say nearly as frequently as they say "racially charged". ―Mandruss  23:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
You are missing the point. "Racially charged" does not say anything because it is not a phrase with a commonly understood or recognized meaning, even if it is sometimes used in the media. Readers of Wikipedia will come here and ask themselves, "what on earth is that supposed to mean?" The fact that the media use an unclear expression of this kind does not oblige us to present it to readers with no explanation of any kind. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
FreeKnowledgeCreator: What wording are you suggesting, that is used by Reliable Sources and is clearer or more easily understood? --MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Both as per Scjessey. I don't presume to put myself above Merriam-Webster on issues of language. They are in the business of documenting common usage, it's what they do. If the article is to be written at an 8th grade level, we have a bit of work to do. ―Mandruss  23:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Racially charged. What MelanieN said. Kerberous (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • What the hell does "racially charged" even mean??? Like they took some words, hooked up a battery loaded up with some racism to them and charged them up? In this context "racially charged" is a grammatically awful weaselly euphemism for "racist". It's a phrase you use when you purposefully don't want to be clear about your meaning. It's non encyclopedic. Now. Wait one minute. "racially charged" actually does have a precise meaning. It describes ... an atmosphere or a situation (here's one source on the history of the term [5]). An atmosphere can be "charged". A situation can be "charged". BUT IT DOES NOT DESCRIBE STATEMENTS. This actually has nothing to do with politics or POV or ideology. "Racially charged" as is being suggested here is just horrible bad writing. Closest example off the top of my head is like someone writing that "people were evacuated". It "sounds right", but is just wrong.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Despite comments to the contrary, every single editor in this discussion knows full well what "racially charged" means. Don't even pretend you don't, people. The fact is, reliable sources frequently contort themselves to avoid using "racist" by substituting it in favor of "racially charged" when commenting on Trumps comments and actions. By using both, we avoid the ambiguity some editors are claiming. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Well that reasoning just supports the weaselly euphemism claim. I disagree, as the definitions are quite different. Maybe those reliable sources actually meant racially charged and not racist, we don't know and shouldn't care. ―Mandruss  16:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Closest example off the top of my head is like someone writing that "people were evacuated". It "sounds right", but is just wrong. - Again, the dictionary disagrees. "Evacuate" definition 4a: "to remove especially from a military zone or dangerous area".
You seem to make a claim to vocabulary "correctness" that transcends the dictionary, which is a fairly common misunderstanding. In vocabulary, what's "correct" is what people do, that's how the English language has evolved, and dictionaries seek to document what people currently do. Merriam-Webster has determined that enough people use that sense of "evacuate" to qualify it as "correct" usage, so they added it to their dictionary. It may have been incorrect in our lifetimes, but we have to be willing to change with the language. There is no static "correctness" in vocabulary. ―Mandruss  17:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Trump's opinion — WP:UNDUE?[edit]

According to some editors, Trump's short quote is WP:UNDUEdiff, yet the views and quotes of David Duke are obviously fine. — diff. That's absurd, this is Trump's biography. What is your opinion? Per WP:BLPWikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. -- Tobby72 (talk) 08:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

What does "tabloid" have to do with anything? Is the Duke quote sourced to tabloids? No? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Including Trump's rebuttal is fine; however I really don't see what "I disavowed him. I disavowed the KKK. Do you want me to do it again for the 12th time? I disavowed him in the past, I disavow him now." adds to "Trump has said that he disavowed David Duke and the KKK on multiple occasions" - what extra information is given by that quote? Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Exactly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Tobby72 Yes, the WP:BLP guidance to avoid tabloid behavior should be applied to this article, for what that is worth. For this quote, I will offer that it suits, but the edit to have it could also be either (1) it REPLACE the WP editor blurb “Trump has said” on the basis that both are not needed and his direct words are better in this BLP context, or (2) the quote be stated INSIDE A CITE for the “Trump has said” line so a statement on what he has said is shown by a cite to him saying which shows what he said. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Pertaining to Trump's recognizing of Jerusalem[edit]

I feel the bit in the Israel section of the foreign policy that involves Trump recognizing Israel is overtly ignoring the support for the decision and only focusing on the negative:

Trump officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel on December 6, 2017, despite criticism and warnings from world leaders. Trump added that he would initiate the process of establishing a new U.S. embassy in Jerusalem, which was later opened on May 14, 2018. The United Nations General Assembly condemned the move, adopting a resolution that "calls upon all States to refrain from the establishment of diplomatic missions in the Holy City of Jerusalem" in an emergency session on December 21, 2017.

The wording enforces that Trump did something universally perceived as negative, with how it glosses over Israel's welcoming of Trump's decision or how multiple presidents before Trump announced they would do the same. Bold and Brash (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Realize that the UN criticism of the action was quite lopsided. 128 countries voted in favor of the resolution rejecting Trump’s decision. 35 abstained. Including the US and Israel, only eight countries were against the resolution: Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Togo, and the United States. This despite the fact that Trump had threatened to cut aid to any members that voted against his decision. O3000 (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Of course I'm not saying the criticism should be removed as it is there and has its reasons, but to only present the negative in the situation as it currently stands leaves the reader's perception of the situation quite one-sided. Bold and Brash (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, reception to the decision was pretty one-sided. We could add a Wikilink to United States recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel, which goes into far more depth. But, there is already such a link in the lede, and there really isn’t much room for it in the section as it’s full of Wikilinks. (I just tried to find a place for it.) O3000 (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
If you say so. Bold and Brash (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Bold and Brash I believe O3000 is just a bit off in minor points... 21 did not show in addition to the 128 voted for the resolution, 9 against, and 35 abstained. And it was Nikki Haley who asked why would the US fund the U.N. and not Trump threatening to cut aid to voting nations, which I think most of the 128 do not get anyway. (But given his nationalism, he might well say the US should not be funding all the nations it does, so extending that to the voting members is not a big stretch.)
But I am also thinking that as his BLP, the space given to non-Trump U.N. could be (or should be) simply removed in favor of mentioning his personal influences and his personal views. Perhaps mention of the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act reaffirmed just before unanimously by Senate as initiating cause; favorable voices from the Jewish parts of his family plus Pence plus the US ambassador; and lastly his own unorthodoxy voiced opinion that not doing so had not been working so he was breaking with delays of past Presidents. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)