Talk:Donald Trump/Article bias forum

Addressing source skew

For a long time, this article has relied primarily on news articles for sourcing, which are horribly prone to cherry-picking. Laudable efforts are underway by user:Rollinginhisgrave, user:SusanLesch, and others to shift reliance to reputable biographical sources. However, as Trump's second term has commenced, and biographical sourcing is obviously not yet available. The purpose of this topic is to discuss proposals for ameliorating the potential for bias (either for or against the subject) evident in source selection to date. I note that in the past, highly motivated editors on the Trump page have leant heavily on claims of 'bias' at the reliable sources noticeboard to remove competing perspectives. Perhaps a starting point might be a consensus item explicitly permitting the use of certain sources? Riposte97 (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate your concerns as I'm sitting on a pile of unusable books. How would this consensus item differ from ordinary Wikipedia procedure? I.e., anything with a reliable rating at WP:RSP is admissible. Editors may ask at WP:RSN for exceptions. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The trouble is, certain sources are de facto treated as deprecated here due to bias (the sources' bias, that is). Fox News is an instructive example from the archives. Over time, we've inadvertently skewed the article's perspective. Riposte97 (talk) 12:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC

So you're not only concerned with this article, you want Wikipedia to reconsider its consensus at WP:RSP which you find to be biased? I.e., Fox News politics is "unreliable" and MSNBC is "reliable". -SusanLesch (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Respectfully, the purpose of WP:RSP is not to create a list of sources the use of which is prescribed. It should not be used for that purpose. Perhaps there is a systemic issue there, but I’m only concerned with this page for the moment. Riposte97 (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

It's unhelpful to discuss sources in a vacuum as a source can only be said to be reliable for verifying a piece of text (my understanding here). Can you give an example of text a Fox News piece should be included? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Quite right. WP:RSPISNOT says that WP:RSP is not N "a list of pre-approved sources that can always be used without regard for the ordinary rules of editing." So no, it's not prescribed sources. Nor is it comprehensive or exhaustive. I don't understand, though: Why do you think this page is exceptional? -SusanLesch (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Riposte97? -SusanLesch (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. Well, I don't think this page is exceptional. But it attracts people of many strong persuasions. I think just explicitly noting that sources should be assessed on their merits on a case-by-case basis would go some way to correcting the skew. That said, I continue to be encouraged by the progress that is being made in the first presidency section and elsewhere. This really is only an issue where a particular Trump action is still swirling in the political discourse. Riposte97 (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

This issue definitely just applies mostly to Trump due to how utterly divisive and controversial he is even compared to the decently but not greatly controversial statuses of Bush, Obama, and Biden. The Obama's article, for example, relies mainly on a lot of news sources for its coverage of his presidency and same with Biden's article, despite both of them also being fairly divisive presidents. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 11:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Off-topic. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Why do you reject three books as sources? They are in agreement on a topic from decades before the second presidency yet you decided to make it controversial. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC) Wondering how this comment belongs on this page, which is for general discussion about the article's bias or lack thereof. It's not for discussion about specific content issues that one thinks involve bias. And I don't see even that in this issue. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC) Rejection of book sources says precisely "source selection to date" to me: "The purpose of this topic is to discuss proposals for ameliorating the potential for bias (either for or against the subject) evident in source selection to date." But I won't pursue it since it's not a meta discussion of bias. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Honestly I think this issue would be almost entirely solved by having a mandatory wait period between when an event happens and when it can be incorporated into the encyclopedia. That's already the spirit of things like WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS but adherence is not a requirement - but perhaps it should be a requirement for contentious topics, especially BLPs. I've lost count of the number of controversies associated with Trump since 2015 that ended up getting endless coverage from certain news outlets but turned out to be what some might call "nothingburgers".

How about a 6 month "cool down" period from when an event happens to when it can be mentioned, during which time editors wishing to mention said event must gain consensus on the article talk page regarding any text to be added to the article?

Very rough idea but you get the concept. Similar to protecting pages during certain periods to prevent disruption. Big Thumpus (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@Big Thumpus: Not sure that would solve it, recent events already get discussed a lot on the TPs, and they usually gain consensus for inclusion (and are arguably still given too much weight). A big benefit of this idea would be that better summary sources would be available at a later date so the article isn't just an amalgamation of news headlines. It might be worthwhile to brainstorm solutions at the village pump for WP:NOTNEWS to be amended. How about your idea but with a much shorter delay, such as two weeks or a month (usually long enough for summary style sources to come out), with Recent newsworthy events should have a [length of time] delay to being added to the article, unless they are crucial to the topic or update information already present. added to WP:NOTNEWS? At the moment I don't think point 2 most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style is sufficient guidance. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I fully support the idea; breaking news is not a good source for encyclopedic content. It has been raised before, and too many editors think Wikipedia's mission is to get current events information out there quickly. Even many very experienced editors will tell you this. And heaven forbid readers should be forced to adapt to a sea change in how Wikipedia treats current events. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

How long are we talking? Reliable retrospectives can take years to come out! Riposte97 (talk) 12:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kowal2701 I like your suggestions. I think a shorter delay than 6 months would work - although I do think there's a potential, regardless of the length of the delay, for particularly active editors to push the POV that simply because something has been written about ad nauseam in particular sources listed at WP:RSP it is "crucial to the topic". That's the only reason I propose a longer wait period, since most of these sensational stories fall off the map after a few weeks or something comes out a few months later that renders the entire thing lame.

@Mandruss Thank you for your support! Do you think 6 months is too harsh? Big Thumpus (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

One issue with my wording is that it doesn’t account articles whose topics are very recent. Maybe Recent newsworthy events should have a [length of time] delay to being added to a long-standing article, unless they are crucial to the topic or update information already present. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I think most editors’ WP:Common sense will prevail regarding interpretation of “crucial” Kowal2701 (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

That I "fully support the idea" doesn't mean I think it's a viable proposal. I'm very pragmatic. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not so much that incidents turned out to be "nothingburgers" but that Trump generates so much news (relative to other U.S. presidents) that no one can properly follow up on them. Time and again, an event that would dominate front pages for days if they happened during a different presidency is "old news" within hours during Trump's times in office. There have been at least five such stories just in the past 24 hours, each jostling the other for public attention like Mr. Burns's diseases. NME Frigate (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say, after living in the US and watching how the media has handled Trump for a full 10 years now, that the media over-reports on him and regularly exaggerates the importance of certain things he does. The fact that "many RS report on him" is simply not enough anymore to justify constant coverage in the encyclopedia; we've all been able to watch these stories unfold over time with our own eyes and how they don't line up with the sensationalist news media speculation. I'm just going to venture a guess that the academic coverage about Trump in 50 years will be a lot less dramatic. Big Thumpus (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Short version: Wikipedia policy is inadequate to handle Trump (and he's probably not the only one). I don't disagree with that. Unless he's the only one, For discussion about Wikipedia article bias in general, please visit Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). applies.

Actually, even if he's the only one, Wikipedia policy won't be changed here to handle him. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that we take this discussion to the village pump? Big Thumpus (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Not yet. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

It’s not just Trump, Elon Musk’s page is arguably worse for it Kowal2701 (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I think rather than about recentism, the problem is about due weight. Recent events should not get disproportionately larger compared to past events. Perhaps there needs to be size limits on his second presidency, for example a 1500-word limit for each year of his second presidency, to enforce WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Kenneth Kho (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

How does that relate to article bias? How is bias addressed by limiting the amount of content? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Limiting size creates pressure to trim undue content to make room for better content, this is self-regulating in the long run. Kenneth Kho (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Suggesting to use more scholarly, published, neutral journals/research papers/biographies to cover Trump's early life, business career and first presidency

The page for the just as famous yet controversial conservative president Ronald Reagan, who basically was the Trump of the '80s in terms of a celebrity becoming a populist politician with a polarizing way of handling the economy, social issues and all, does manage to come off as less negative than Trump's page optics wise and the main reason is because the majority of sources come from scholarly research papers, journals, and biographies which often do a more neutral approach to the subject even if they are controversial. Like, we don't need to change the mainly news source filled citations of Obama and Biden's pages cause while also controversial, aren't nearly as heated and controversial as Donald. Just saying, if we use some of the most neutral rhetoric biographies and balanced research papers/scholarly works, we could reduce the complaints amongst some editors that the article (and other related ones regarding Trump's past and first presidency, his second presidency is still ongoing so we're not changing that yet) comes off as less biased rhetorically and optics wise. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't disagree that we need higher quality sources. We're working on that and have made significant progress in recent months. I do disagree that that's the reason Trump's article is more negative than Reagan's. Reagan didn't get into the White House twice by pissing off half the country to the great delight of the other half. Reagan didn't have a mouth that he could not control. Reagan didn't brag about grabbing women by the pussy, and Reagan didn't make a habit of publicly insulting anyone who disagreed with him or criticized him, using the most vile, churlish, and juvenile language possible, appealing to the worst of human nature. Reagan didn't constantly lie and deliberately distort the truth and call it "truthful hyperbole". Whether or not you agreed with his policy positions, Reagan comported himself like a president of the U.S. and a leader of the free world. And I won't even go into things like apparent mental disorders, the threat to American democracy, etc.

I really hate it when people make such comparisons between Trump's article and other presidential articles. There has never been a U.S. president anything like Trump, at least not in modern history. And, on top of everything else, he wears that like a badge of honor. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 05:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

"There has never been a U.S. president anything like Trump, at least not in modern history."

This statement is very hyperbolic. Yes, in terms of rhetoric and behavior, Trump is a unique president in modern US history, mainly because he openly shows his poor behavior unlike some of the past presidents who even with some being unpleasant still tried to hide it behind affability. But rhetoric and behavior are not what all the article of a president should focus on and that should not shape the tone and skew of an article. There's policies, economic and social effects, and overall legacy. There is very little unique about Trump's economic, social, foreign, and domestic policies and their effects on the country and the world at large that made the actions of his first presidency stand out from those of Reagan, Andrew Jackson, and many controversial conservative or just reactionary presidents in US history. The evaluation and tone of Trump's first presidency and early life should be treated at least be treated as any other president and not given special treatment. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 06:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I find a lot of wisdom in many old sayings. One of my favorites: If you want it done right, do it yourself. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok then Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 06:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Editor responsibility

@SusanLesch: I don't see you taking much (actually, any) material from politically-conservative reliable sources. Have I missed something? Maybe some of the books? It's impossible to not have a bias, but an editor's political leanings and views on Trump shouldn't be so apparent. We have to check that at the door, somehow compartmentalizing editing from our off-wiki selves. We must transform from Scotty to Spock when we log in, temporarily becoming impassionate robots that don't "care about" anything related to the article's subject; humanness doesn't belong here. (Maybe autism spectrum helps? Ask your local psychologist.) Right or wrong, we have to put the encyclopedia's apolitical objectivity before even existential questions about the state of American democracy.

Don't get me wrong, you're hardly the only one and maybe in a small majority. But you're currently one of the more prolific ones at this article. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 23:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Whoa, sounds like you've had this speech bottled up for a long time. Your concern about sourcing is understandable. I spent 20 minutes just now skimming through the sources and aside from 1 Washington Times, 1 Fox, and 3 WSJ, it's pretty much NYT, WaPo, CNN, NPR, CNBC. I'll tell you how I find sources. Google. Then I usually select from the results a global news agency, likely Reuters or AP. To quote Wikipedia, the wire services "operate on a basic philosophy of providing a single objective news feed to all subscribers." I'd term that non-partisan. I came to this article hoping to improve our insights into the young Trump, and had the money at the time to buy most every biography of note. I don't check the authors for conservative or liberal bona fides. Only one seemed to me to be swayed left (David Cay Johnston). I'm not one of "the more prolific ones" and probably not your intended audience. My last post was answering what was the purpose of an edit, and my answer was "For context and to steer this article in the direction of neutrality." I'm not a top editor and come in sixth on authorship. Are you by any chance suffering inside a bubble? -SusanLesch (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

sounds like you've had this speech bottled up for a long time. You can certainly say the idea has been incubating for a long time, since before you arrived. I didn't mean to single you out by any means, and it was probably a bad approach in hindsight. Are you by any chance suffering inside a bubble? Sorry, I don't know what that means. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 23:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I just meant, are you a conservative looking things over and regretting the article's sourcing? Or are you depressed that the sourcing isn't more balanced? I think we can bring this up on the general Talk page. Maybe editors have favorite charts (one example). I'd be very interested to see the outcome. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

are you a conservative looking things over and regretting the article's sourcing? Ha. Hardly. My "views on Trump" are well known by eight years of occasional comments on the talk page, but you wouldn't know them by my article editing or my content positions on the talk page (in my opinion). Maybe that's why you had to ask the question? Or are you depressed that the sourcing isn't more balanced? Yes, aside from the word "depressed". For example, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think blamed was your choice of word, and I doubt it fairly reflected the full spectrum of reliable sources on the matter. We require verifiability, but we should avoid cherry-picking our reliable sources (especially in areas of controversy). ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 23:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

By the way, the purpose of this forum is to keep general article bias discussion off the talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 23:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Could have been me as I am unaccustomed to editing politics. I appreciate the correction. I had to ask questions because this thread felt misdirected at me and reading our sources made me worry about you. Maybe you'll start a thread seeking input on media bias (another example). -SusanLesch (talk) 01:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

If your complaint was my phrasing that you had to correct, I am due an apology or retraction. Not one editor of this article, including you, uses conservative reliable sources. To repeat, I am the 6th author, not "currently one of the more prolific ones," and not a top editor. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I didn't mean to single you out by any means, and it was probably a bad approach in hindsight. That's about as close as I generally get to an apology. I'll sometimes go further if I feel my transgression was more than a human mistake. But, if it's important to you, here ya go: I'm sorry. Not one editor of this article, including you, uses conservative reliable sources. Yeah, that's the problem. Selective sourcing = article bias. My strong belief is that the most prolific editors don't even look at right-leaning sources (speaking of "bubble"). As for me, I can't recall the last time I added new content in an area of controversy. I'm more of a copy editor. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Thank you, Mandruss. Is it possible to archive this thread? -SusanLesch (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

No, there is no archive for this page, nor is one needed. Discussions in a forum like this are never really resolved. Others might wish to comment in this thread, even a year from now. (This might be revisited if the page becomes really large, but at this rate that's unlikely to happen before everybody moves on from Trump to the next U.S. president. There will be far less editor interest in Trump-related articles when there is nothing politically at stake.) ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Media bias

For background, Poynter Institute published "Should you trust media bias charts?". Two charts are widely cited and both have critics. I'm not proposing that we use either one as a source but both might be a guide to editors looking for sources they might not usually see.

• Ad Fontes Media Bias Chart: Static and Interactive. WP:ADFONTES
• AllSides Media Bias Chart. WP:ALLSIDES

-SusanLesch (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, that's helpful. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:36, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Today I used one of these to find a source for a well-known fact. Wasted 20 minutes. About five sources leaning right didn't report the fact, one did but by reprinting Reuters, and one was a misquote. So I'll continue to depend on the wire services, The New York Times and the other newspapers of record (WSJ, WaPo, and LA Times according to Google AI). -SusanLesch (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

A pretty big decision based on a sample size of 1 (one case, that is). ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 20:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I have my conservative sources to scan headlines most days. However, I learned some on these charts don't make the cut. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)