Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 168

Archive 165

Archive 166

Archive 167

Archive 168

Discussion pointer

This talk page is currently under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Note, this discussion is about our consensus #25 and has been open since January 23 without notifying editors of this article. Sneaky (not by Nikkimaria), but justice ultimately prevails. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mandruss I'm confused, you expect to be informed about a discussion that tangentially involved this page, but came to a consensus (the invalid #25) without notifying the editors at WT:CITE? That goes both ways, you know. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it doesn't go both ways. We don't notify a guideline talk page when we're considering a consensus that would deviate from the guideline. Unlike what you did, that is not a community norm and I've never seen anyone do it. (As I've previously said, you are free to do that if you want to bring in outside voices. But it is not a procedural "community norm".) The essential difference is that changes to an article are discussed at its talk page, not at guideline talk pages. Out of 65 current consensus items, not a one links to discussions off this page (although the linked discussions may link to discussions off this page). And #25 is hardly invalid, as I've thoroughly articulated at WT:CITE. Guidelines are only guidelines and we are allowed to deviate from them (your CONLEVEL claim is completely baseless).

You have done everything except what might change #25—start a discussion about it on this page. When do you plan to drop this stick? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Since you can't seem to let go of this CONLEVEL thing, I've now raised it at WP:VPP#CONLEVEL and guidelines. Feel free to go there and lose. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I recommend you stepping away from the page for a bit, you are getting close to crossing WP:NPA over here. Soni (talk) 05:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh my. We seem to interpret NPA differently. Where have I come close to violating it? Certainly not by referring to WP:STICK (sans the shortcut), which is fairly routine. Certainly not by calling an editor's claim "baseless", which is simply a counter-argument. If you want to talk about battleground behavior and disruptive editing, consider unilaterally cancelling a consensus item[1] (this is NOT something subject to BOLD editing) and then edit-warring one's change.[2]

For now, I'll decline your thoughtful recommendation. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

"Feel free to go there and lose." is arguably a civility thing, depending on where in the world one lives, but not NPA vio. I'll strike that as unessential. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

NPA isn't exactly the right policy in my opinion. Maybe WP:DBI? The discussion at VPP CITE reeks of sarcasm and unnecessary snark, from both parties. And Feel free to go there and lose is a step too far. Phrases like that show pretty clearly that any potential discussion has preemptively been set up for failure. Cessaune [talk] 07:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I see zero sarcasm and unnecessary snark at VPP (yet). Perhaps you meant WT:CITE? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Thank you for the correction. Cessaune [talk] 07:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah you're right. I was thinking of WP:civility for that exact line, just mentally mixed up the page names Soni (talk) 10:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Splitting this article

Right now the article is extremely long, a lot of which does not need to be there. I think it might be good to discuss which sections need to be trimmed and split off.

For example, the Presidency section is nearly half the page, and clearly does not all need to be here. There is a separate Presidency of Donald Trump article. This article should not repeat all the points there. We should try to summarise them further Soni (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Izno, Novem Linguae, Locke Cole, and ActivelyDisinterested: - Pinging everyone who discussed adjacent things in the VPT discussion Soni (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• I am still of the opinion that 99% of the presidency stuff should be removed in favor of a summary style section and hatnote link to the main presidency article. That alone will solve the problem. No one should be allowed to add content to that section here. They should be reverted and directed to the main presidency article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  This would be great to do ...have not been able to load the page on my phone in almost a year.... simply too big and times out. This happens to me with articles that are over 15000 words and or over 900 kB of sources and or 25 plus images.... Combining all these makes it impossible load. That said on my PC everything works just fine and looks good. Moxy🍁 20:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  You may need a new phone with more capacity. I have no problem with any articles on my Samsung Galaxy S21 5G 128GB. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  I do have a better phone....but use an old one to see what will be accessible for people with older phones. The vast majority of the world has phones older then 8 years old. All those phones that Americans turn in for an upgrade get recycled and used somewhere in the world. Our goal is to make things accessible to the vast majority of people not just Americans with the newest technology..... that's why we have size limits. Moxy🍁 20:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Most readers are not on desktops, and there proportion bof all readers is only going to increase. Also depending on where they are from they may not have or be unable to access the most modern equipment. The articles suffers heavily from "It works ok for me". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think this section is probably the lowest-hanging fruit, yes. If you look at the Template:Section lengths above, the 4 years of his presidency (out of his 78 years of life, ~5%) is 50% of the current wikitext. Izno (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Considering that he may become the 47th US president on 20 January 2025. His BLP will certainly become even longer. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I trimmed the section a bit, but we should probably trim it further. I might make some more BOLD removals. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I prefer just going a bit more BOLD and using Template:Excerpt style excerpts sourced directly from the Presidency lede. If 99% of the article needs to be trimmed, iterative removal can only go so far. I think that's what @Valjean said above as well, but maybe they were saying something different with a "summary style". Soni (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we have to face the fact that Trump has had a very full and varied life, and we editors will always disagree about what the highlights are. That said, give trimming a go.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Support dramatic trimming over splitting. Way too much of the article is excessive detail for a one-page account of a 77-year life. This is not a 400-page book, but many editors seem to think it is. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

We have trimmed considerably, or we would still be at just below 500,000 bytes despite having added 30,000 bytes since the trim. As for making room for new content just in case TFG is elected again, let's cross that bridge when we get to it. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 09:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe what the other 5-10 editors are saying is that the current trims are just not enough. The article has significant load problems on older devices already, there are sections much longer than even other comparable pages, and a lot of it would benefit from summarising further. Soni (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

"Trimming" is perhaps the wrong word for what I have in mind. I tried "dramatic trimming", but maybe "gutting". Post-2014. Summary style. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Complicating this is the fact that nothing can be removed that's mentioned in the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Any suggestions for the post-2014 gutting that wouldn't involve white-washing, e.g., banning authoritarian actions such as forcibly removing lawful and peaceful demonstrators for a photo-op with a Bible; pardoning family, cronies, and people recommended by cronies and celebrities; considering two of the pardoned felons (Manafort and Stone) for campaign positions (We do not need to list who the 5 people were)? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I think you're conflating "Don't list every event/action that happened" with whitewashing. You do not need every single thing Trump did to be mentioned here to make an accurate summary that also lists things in more depth. In fact, I'd argue that listing nearly everything is more "white-washy" simply because the most pertinent things are "drowned out". Is removing peaceful protesters notable? Sure. For Trump, is it of equal importance as Jan 6? Definitely not.

Focus on scholarly consensus and a selection of the "most notable" things Trump did in his presidency. People who want to learn about these in more depth can go to subarticles, but the article must gut out most of the current detailing Soni (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

It isn't whitewashing, it is summarizing. All of the info would be kept on the pages about those specific topics. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Why wouldn't we be able to remove things mentioned in the lead? —Locke Cole • t • c 09:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

We can cut the president stuff, as we have an article on that. Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Better summarisation and directing readers to articles that cover the specific details in full is definitely the way to go. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I don’t get why size is (again) such a pressing matter for this article (well, actually I do — Village Pump) when Presidency of Donald Trump is much larger. It currently has 533,000 bytes and 907 citations, and there's been no discussion about its size in four years. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

That other articles are also in a bad state isn't an argument to not do anything about this article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Anything that large should probably also be reduced in size, but that one does not have as many sub-articles. No individual person should have a page this long. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Half-joking, half serious: make only section headings with {{Main}}. Zero prose. Just sections and hatnotes. SWinxy (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Presidency draft page

See also: Wikipedia:Summary style

Most editors seem to agree on Presidency section needing severe to very severe cuts. So I have created Draft:Donald_Trump/Presidency where we can collaborate on the Presidency section without affecting the current article's stability. I started off with a simple use of Template:Excerpt because that would cut things down to a reasonable size while keeping it easy to maintain. Either way, once we have a reasonable draft, we should replace the entire Presidency section with it. Soni (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

We already have Presidency of Donald Trump, we do not need two pages on the same topic. Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

This draft is supposed to replace all of Donald_Trump#Presidency_(2017–2021), not be a separate article. We currently use 200K bytes to say nearly everything the Presidency article already says, so I want to get people's opinions and reduce all of that to the minimum manageable amount. I'm starting it as a draft so we can iterate before we actually replace it in Article space. Soni (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Why not just use the article we have? Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I think using the Excerpt template here is a bad idea, since the lead of the Presidency article does not have sources. It might make readers think that the content in that section is unsourced. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

If we add sources to that articles lede (or make a copy of that lede with sources), would that work for the overall section? Soni (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. The lead should be the best possible summary of the article, so just adding sources should make it good enough for a summary style section here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• @Moxy, ActivelyDisinterested, Izno, GoodDay, Jack Upland, Mandruss, Space4Time3Continuum2x, and SWinxy: Pinging everyone else who discussed trimming in the section above. I'm hoping we can establish consensus on a new draft for the Presidency section to replace the current one. Soni (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  Personally, I still do not think that using the Excerpt template is a good idea, because the other article's lead has different goals than this article's section, and is subject to the consensus of that article's talk page and not this one. The summary needs to be trimmed, but this isn't the way we should do it. SXWinxy's proposal would be a good one, if it weren't for the need to make this article work without requiring clicking links. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  One option we could try is making the hatnote more explicit. Put it in prose, like new editors sometimes do before finding out that the template exists. How about this:

  This section only contains a summary of the most important details. For a more detailed description, see Presidency of Donald Trump.

  QuicoleJR (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  Can you clarify what exactly SWinxy's proposal means? Maybe a mock up of it? I tried to parse it a few times but I don't quite follow what it means. Soni (talk) 06:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• If the lead contained sourcing, using "excerpt" would work, but here we are with no sources in the lead. See: Wikipedia:Summary style#Using excerpts for article synchronization. Alternatively, we can copy the lead and add links, or use the excerpt template and add a prose hatnote that explains where to find the sources: "This is only a summary, and the sources are found in the main article." (something like that). This is an opportunity to tweak the PAG. They are not set in stone. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

My first reaction in two words: hell no. Who's going to read that wall of text which has more blue links than plain text? As for the specifics, I got as far as "brokered the Abraham Accords": the next hell no — see consensus #65 (after you click "show", wishing you had purged the page). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I am soliciting feedback so we can change said specifics. For the general case, the current article has much more of a wall of text (as the sections above already show).

With the Abraham Accords, it sounds like a simple sentence change would fix it, to meet #65 anyway. I do not know why you treat Local consensus as this unchanging unbreakable rule for this page. WP:Consensus can change, and the way to change consensus is by discussion (like the one we're having right now). Soni (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think any long-time editors of this article need to be reminded that consensus can change. Twenty percent of the consensus items have been superseded. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

The proposed text reads like an excerpt of the lead, expanded to include material not considered important enough to be mentioned in the lead. It's basically a bullet list without bullets, lacking "structure [] with consistent, reader-friendly layouts and formatting" (WP:MOS). Each item says nothing but "click here if you want to know what this is about". Aside from that, the rewrite aka massive reduction of material would result in quite a few discussions, all going on at the same time. Trump is running for reelection, so IMO now isn't the time to reduce the current summary-level overview of his first presidency. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Trump is running for reelection, so IMO now isn't the time to reduce the current summary-level overview of his first presidency. In fact, that is even more important to clean up the lengthy mess we have currently. But either way, we should never stall any page improvements for a full year just based on outside reasons. If the article can be improved, we should improve it. It'd be silly to stall page improvements for months based on that Soni (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

The lengthy mess, IMO, is a consistently structured, reader-friendly overview. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

We already have the Presidency of Donald Trump page. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

BOLD Removals

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Why did you revert my trimming of these sections? QuicoleJR (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm also trying to understand HOW to (successfully/"permanently", without being reverted) WikiLink to Brand licensing SOMEWHERE in *THIS* (DT) article. It seems helping a reader understand "licensing" could be helpful??

Thanks.

(it seems I upset the same StarTrek-related-named(?) editor mentioned above…) Curious1i (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted their revert. You discussed the edits while making it, they need to actually explain why they disagree before/while doing the revert. WP:BRD should not be a roundabout "Stall discussions forever". Soni (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand concerns of whitewashing, but no actual information is being removed. It is just being covered on sub-articles about those specific topics. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I responded, in the above Talk:Donald_Trump#Splitting_this_article section where JR mentioned the bold trimming and their intention to do more. (AFAIK, edit summaries aren't part of the discussion cycle, and "can be covered elsewhere" or "we do not need to list these people" doesn't really say a whole lot.) The coverage in sub-articles needs to be mentioned in this article, or how else will readers not as immersed in the Trumpverse as we are know that there's something worthwhile to look up? Since a third editor (you) now reverted my revert, I'll respond in detail tomorrow. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The article has been dominated by a single purpose account. Having experienced editors in other articles is a great asset that is missing from here. Moxy🍁 18:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy: I think calling Space4 an SPA is excessive. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Since you mentioned it, I'll agree. I have zero objection to any editor's "dominance", provided they are dominating with fairness, competence, and commitment to process. But sure, the more competent participation, the better. It's hardly Space4T's fault that we don't have a lot of that.

If a focus on one article constitutes SPA, I'm more guilty than Space4T. I never go to other AP2 articles, and rarely to any other articles. I like the commitment to process at this article, which is not present at many other AP2 articles. And I'm semi-retired. So sue me. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

🙏 Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy: single purpose account? WP:AGF. Experienced editors casting aspersions are not an asset, great or otherwise, on any page. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

We are mentioning the basic topic and linking to the sub-article, so it's not like we are hiding anything. We are just asking them to click the links in the hatnote if they want more specific details. Wikipedia:Summary style is an official guideline. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Soni: Please, restore the consensus version you reverted in this edit until the discussion has resulted in a new consensus. QuicoleRJ and me were both following procedure, you weren't. A wise editor once wrote: I think you're confusing content with edit. The ArbCom restriction is about challenged edits, not challenged content. Once content has been in the article for a certain amount of time (admin NeilN has suggested 4–6 weeks, IIRC, and that image has been in the article for longer than that), its removal is not a challenge-by-reversion but simply a BOLD edit. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Your link isn't right. But I'm okay with restoring (Undo button doesn't work anymore because of intermediate edits, so there's no easy way for me to do so) while we discuss. At the time I reverted you, you had no comments about the removal itself on talk. That's why I reverted, not because I disagree with restrictions or BRD.

Coming back to the discussion, what is the level of detail you think is "necessary" in this article? I'll skip over the whitewashing comments because they're not going to lead us anywhere, I just want to know roughly how much you expect this article to have versus the Presidency article.

On the "Splitting this article" section above, I sense informal but clear consensus in favour of even more drastic reductions. So I'm personally more invested in the overall plan for the article and trying to draft up a reasonable section at Talk:Donald_Trump#Presidency_draft_page Soni (talk) 10:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I have to get back to this later, having trouble keeping up with the increase in editing in the main space and here (and occasionally doing paid work ). We've had numerous short, medium, and lengthy discussions about reductions/drastic reductions, all archived, often of the "10 editors, 20 opinions" variety. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: this (I think you're confusing content with edit. The ArbCom restriction is about challenged edits, not challenged content. Once content has been in the article for a certain amount of time (admin NeilN has suggested 4–6 weeks, IIRC, and that image has been in the article for longer than that), its removal is not a challenge-by-reversion but simply a BOLD edit.) applies to this bold removal of longstanding content and its challenge, as well. If it had been a bold addition, the challenged text would stay out of the article until there's a consensus for inclusion on the Talk page. It's a bold removal, it stays in the article until there's a consensus for exclusion. Please, self-revert this edit. IMO, it is not an improvement to use the vague term "less lethal weapons", which redirects to non-lethal weapons (an article that is tagged as needing verification and lists many other weapons in addition to some of the specific ones named in our cited sources), for the sake of saving 59 bytes. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a bold removal, it stays in the article until there's a consensus for exclusion. What is the basis for this statement? It's not what the arb restriction says.

We don't decide what articles to link on the basis of the overall quality of those articles. The article is of sufficient quality to define the term for those who don't know what it means, though of course if you'd like to improve it by all means do so. The specific weapons used are not a detail that must be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

+1 as the original editor. Most people do not need to know the exact list of weapons law enforcement used, they just need to know that they weren't trying to kill the protesters. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is going nowhere. Hatting so that we can focus on the content itself. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, as to process: If something has been in the article for a long time, it's said to have de facto consensus and a new consensus is required to remove it if the bold removal is contested. Historically, editors at this article haven't disagreed with the concept, but there were recurring disputes about the definition of "a long time". Eventually, admin NeilN suggested 4–6 weeks; since no other "authority" has said any different, that's the number we've used in the rare situations that it's been an issue. It's not what the arb restriction says because the arb restriction does not cover all applicable process, only the part that's different for this article and others like it. I hope this makes a little sense. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC) I haven't reviewed the historic discussions that inform your comment so it's possible I'm missing some nuance. But on its face, if we're talking about general process rather than something specific to either CTOP or this particular article, then we would need to have a discussion first before potentially restoring the contested content. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC) That's not how I understand it, nor how it's been done at this article at least since 2015 when I descended upon it. De facto consensus is a thing, and not a thing we invented. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC) An edit is presumed to have consensus until it is disputed, but once it is disputed that goes away; there's no time limit on when that can happen. That's why "it's been around a long time" is an argument to avoid in discussions. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC) According to that essay. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC) The presumed-until-challenged piece is from EDITCON, a policy. That's why I asked about the basis for the statement, as I'm not aware of any other than essays. But I think this meta-discussion is distracting from the actual content under dispute. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC) It's common to collapse "distracting" process discussion so it's less distracting. But this article is built around process as the only fair way to do things, so process needs discussion when there's disagreement. The disagreements themselves are distracting, as we've seen here, which is why it's important to resolve them to prevent future distracting disagreements. Does this particular process issue warrant a separate discussion? I don't know. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC) It says edit, not addition of content. The removal would seem to be the edit that has been challenged. For the record, I am on your side in terms of excluding the weapon list, I'm just saying that EDITCON is not really the best argument for exclusion. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC) @Nikkimaria, Space4Time3Continuum2x, and Mandruss: Here is the most relevant part of policy I know of, (with some irrelevant exceptions excluded) from WP:CONSENSUS: When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However: Living people. In discussions related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC) I find it compelling that a very experienced and respected admin, NeilN (who is regrettably no longer around), endorsed and even enforced the de facto consensus concept—specifically at this here article about a living person. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC) This policy agrees with you. It says add, modify, or remove, not just add. The question in relation to this policy is whether the BLP exception applies. I'd say it doesn't, as the link specifies that the objection must be BLP-related. I agree with removing it, but I think we should focus on the actual content. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC) Fine with me; focus away. I have no opinion on the actual content. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC) The policy you're quoting is about when discussions end without consensus. The claim that "de facto consensus" (ie longevity) requires retention of disputed content before/during discussion is a different issue. I'm not sure what policy would support the enforcement of that claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC) The wikilink in discussions related to living people links to WP:BLPRESTORE which is about good-faith BLP objections, a high bar for public figures and not the reason why the content was removed in this case. Seems to me that When .. proposals to ... remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit applies. Until the discussion has concluded, the consensus version is the one prior to the bold edit, so your revert of my revert to the consensus version was wrong, no? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC) No. The quote you provided applies after the discussion ends, not until it ends. And at the moment, it's looking more likely to end with consensus for removal. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

To talk about the actual content instead of the policy considerations that may or may not apply, I support exclusion as the editor who originally removed it. First off, the quality of the article linked to is irrelevant to whether the link should be here. The list, featuring five different weapons, is not worth including on Trump's article when the photo-op has its own article, especially since he is not the one who used the weapons. Non-lethal weapons (or less lethal weapons) is easily understandable and covers the relevant parts of the weapons choice. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit in question: replace longstanding content batons, rubber bullets, pepper spray projectiles, stun grenades, and smoke with less lethal weapons. Most readers will probably understand the named weapons, but will probably not understand and have to click "less lethal" or the previous suggestion "non-lethal weapons", and the substitution saves a mere 59 bytes. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

See no reason to believe the average reader will know what a stun grenade is and not what less lethal means (since even without clicking it has a plain English meaning). And regardless of the total byte count, this is a level of detail that doesn't need to be here. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

+1. Less lethal/Non-lethal is a self-explanatory term, while the weapon list is an excessive amount of detail. Also, the concept of stun grenades is no more common than less lethal weapons, and much less common than non-lethal weapons. Overall, I really don't think that it needs to be included here. Readers who really want to see what weapons were used can go to the photo-op's article. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of content proposed for removal

1. Conflict of interest. A self-dealing president, spending tax-dollars (e.g. billing the Secret Service top dollars) at the properties he hasn't divested himself of (also golfing a lot after calling his predecessor out for golfing a lot less).

Sentence on visiting Trump properties proposed for deletion
Trump visited a Trump Organization property on 428 (nearly one in three) of the 1,461 days of his presidency and is estimated to have played 261 rounds of golf, one every 5.6 days.

2. Quote from New York Times. It's the opinion of a legal expert at Harvard Law School's Environmental & Energy Law Program, quoted in a newspaper of record.

Sentence proposed for deletion: Trump's actions while president have been called "a very aggressive attempt to rewrite our laws and reinterpret the meaning of environmental protections"

Trump rolled back more than 100 federal environmental regulations, including those that curbed greenhouse gas emissions, air and water pollution, and the use of toxic substances. He weakened protections for animals and environmental standards for federal infrastructure projects, and expanded permitted areas for drilling and resource extraction, such as allowing drilling in the Arctic Refuge. Trump's actions while president have been called "a very aggressive attempt to rewrite our laws and reinterpret the meaning of environmental protections".

3. Commuting sentence of Alice Marie Johnson, Kim Kardashian connection. Meh — withdrawing objection to removal. Sentence of middle-management drug trafficker commuted while the applications of other people (who moved far less "produce" but don't have the celebrity connection) through the normal DOJ channels didn't make it to TFG's desk - a feature, not a bug.

Johnson/Kardashian
Following a request by celebrity Kim Kardashian, Trump commuted the life sentence of Alice Marie Johnson, who had been convicted of drug trafficking.

4. Pardons. Behavior typical of authoritarian leaders: pardoning family, cronies, and people recommended by cronies and celebrities. Trump is considering two of the pardoned felons (Manafort and Stone) for campaign positions (CNN, Telegraph).

Sentence proposed for deletion: Among them were Michael Flynn; Roger Stone, whose 40-month sentence for lying to Congress, witness tampering, and obstruction he had already commuted in July; and Paul Manafort.
and five people convicted as a result of investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential elections. Among them were Michael Flynn; Roger Stone, whose 40-month sentence for lying to Congress, witness tampering, and obstruction he had already commuted in July; and Paul Manafort.

5. Muslim ban. IMO the specific is better than the generalization. The proposed new text "certain Muslim-majority countries" instead of naming the countries makes me wonder which countries. When I hear "Muslim" followed by "security concerns", I think of 9/11 and Saudi-Arabia (financed by Saudi-Arabian money, and the terrorists were mostly Saudi citizens, none of them from any of the banned countries).

Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen
On January 27, 2017, Trump signed Executive Order 13769, which suspended admission of refugees for 120 days and denied entry to citizens of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen for 90 days, citing security concerns.

The "Presidency" article is much less read than this one, so when we don't mention actions or names, they're effectively hidden. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, I'm just saying that not everything can stay in the article. The amount of stuff to mention will only go up from here, especially if he is re-elected in November. Eventually, we will have to remove relevant and well-sourced info simply because there is too much to cover here. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

To address some of your more specific concerns, I think #5 can stay for now, since your objection makes sense. #1 is probably relevant enough to stay at the moment, but I think we should trim the specific numbers and just say that he visited the properties on roughly 1 in 3 days of his presidency. I still think #4 should probably go, but your objection does make sense, and there are other things in the article that we can trim first. As for #2, I am going to push back on that one. This person is so important, has been relevant for so long, and has received so much media coverage that I do not think that we should include any quotes that aren't by him, with very few exceptions. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I reinserted per the above, removed Flynn's name from the sentence on pardons. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Potentia of Invalid Edit Revert on Truth Social Floatation

@Mandruss I urge you to revert your edit Thanks Jaymailsays (talk) 03:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

That's an argument? Declined, for the reasons given in my edit summary. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

You offered an invalid opinion, not a reason? It verges on vandalism. Jaymailsays (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh my. Wait for others. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I see nothing invalid about the revert. And be careful with the word "vandalism". It verges on WP:CASTING ASPERSIONS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

It's excessive detail in his personal bio and belongs in the related article. Also, WP:NOTNEWS. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Excessive?

His wealth increased considerably overnight, at a time when by his own submissions he was unable to raise the original court bond amount and needed a further ten days to provide a much lesser amount. The bullying tactics are surprising, given the importance of Truth Social as an asset, albeit a paper one. Jaymailsays (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Wait a minute. He posted multiple times that he had $500 million in cash at the same time his lawyers said he couldn't afford to pay less than that. And I have no idea who you are claiming is "bullying". As far as this stock, experts say it is not worth anything close to its price, insiders sold shares before it opened, the concept that we would add this to his net worth one day after an IPO makes no sense for an encyclopedia, the variance will be enormous meaning we will be wrong if we don't change it every ten minutes. Just today, it went up 24% and then dropped 9%, and it's still morning. There is no way this number belongs in an encyclopedia at this time. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Donald_Trump#Current_consensus #5. We use Trump's net worth evaluation and matching rankings from the Forbes annual list of billionaires. Axios writes that Truth Social "is trading like a meme stock, meaning its market value is completely divorced from its financial reality". It has "far fewer users and less income than any social network that has gone public before. ... Meme stocks like GameStop and AMC that soared during the pandemic-era retail investor bump have since crashed". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Love the way as an amateur you try to explain stock trading. Keep digging, it is very entertaining.

All wealth fluctuates. A fact of life and death. Jaymailsays (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

how bout you try restating your opinion without the pretty blatant personal attack, before it becomes actionable. the strikethrough format would a fitting format to utilize. ValarianB (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The stock has now dropped over 50%. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding this reference to the worst presidents clause in the lead

Hi, I would like to gain a consensus on implementing this source in the lead that supports the sentence that says that scholars and historians ranking Trump as one of the worst presidents. The text doesn’t need to be changed. Just adding a source. Source: [3] Interstellarity (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm philosophically opposed to the two citations we have there already already (the only citations in the lead). I don't believe in accommodating readers who stop reading at the lead. I'd prefer to have that added in the body. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Redacted 00:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Hear, hear! --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Mandruss. Trump is certainly in the race for worst president if not already the winner. But, too early for an encyclopedia to say such in the lead. I'm fine with this in the body as a scholarly/historical view. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Mandruss. Mandruss opposes the new lead citation, not the lead content (which is already there). That's a separate topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, misunderstood. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Just a note that I have removed the existing lead citations in the paragraph. If anyone objects to their removal, people are free to make their case below. Interstellarity (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

See related current consensus item 58. It supersedes my personal philosophy, but AFAICT it doesn't necessarily preclude your edit. I see no clear consensus to include those two cites. Granted, the hidden comment removed in your edit disagrees, but the hidden comments aren't 100% trustworthy or the final word. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I object to the removal:

1) We previously [discussed] which sentences would benefit from having inline citations, which is where the citations in the lead came from—to remove the citations should require another discussion, methinks. I would suggest a self-revert until such a discussion has taken place. We came to a consensus on which sentences to add inline citations to; naturally, repealing a previous consensus requires a consensus to repeal. I don't want to dig through the archives to find said consensus, but I'd like to believe that the fact that the citations are there to begin with is enough, considering this page and its intolerance for lead citations.

2) We include citations for controversial statements because guidelines ask us to. See WP:LEADCITE (which is terribly worded and much too vague IMO): The verifiability policy states that all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports it. In the case of the phrases that were codified in the lead, editors here at Donald Trump decided that those few phrases were covered by this section of the guideline, and, as such, required inline citations. That part of the guideline was codified in the consensus list because, for reasons I don't understand, editors here are very strongly opposed to citations in the lead, and the consensus list is much more powerful than measly guidelines.

3) Even if lead citations are redundant, unnecessary, etc—what's actually wrong with them? Like, seriously. What's the actual problem with including them in the lead? Byte count? PEIS limit? Are they too distracting? I have tried to understand this point of view many times and I simply cannot. Why should readers have to hunt down a citation scattered somewhere in the body when we can just... hand them one in the lead? As far as I can tell, they don't hurt anyone in any substantial way.

4) Mandruss, including a citation in the lead when there are separate citations in the body is a situation that almost falls under the jurisdiction of MOS:REPEATLINK IMO, a guideline that you previously advocated for. I consider these two scenarios to be analogous in some respects. Cessaune [talk] 04:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

the consensus list is much more powerful than measly guidelines. As it should be. Guidelines are only guidelines (especially MoS guidelines, imho). They are to be considered but are not binding. WP editing is not about robotically following rules.

I at least looked for consensus for those two citations. It sounds like you didn't, and are assuming it exists merely because the citations have existed for a long time. Faulty assumption in my opinion.

4) What you see there are two competing principles. In the discussion you linked, I said: If I'm a reader, I don't particularly care to go hunting for a link elsewhere in the article when I need one. If I'm a reader, I don't need a link in the lead unless I stop reading at the lead. As I said, I don't believe in accommodating that. If I'm a reader, I can go find the sources in the body if I really care about verifiability. Otherwise, I can assume that the article's editors know what they're doing.

Oh... and that discussion was about wikilinks, not citations (as is REPEATLINK), although I suppose the same principles apply somewhat. (As you suggested, I belatedly notice.)

And yes, many editors feel that the absence of citations results in a much cleaner lead. I'm one of them. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

faulty assumption—I didn't assume. I merely would "like to believe". No, I didn't dig through the archives. I'm lazy and don't want to.

I think that the absence of citations in this case results in a negligibly cleaner lead. Like, come on. Do you genuinely think that the lead feels noticeably less cluttered without the citations? If so, I don't understand that opinion. We aren't January 6 United States Capitol attack. It was two cites. They didn't split a sentence in half. Hell, they didnt split anything—they were at the end of a paragraph. Next to each other. In principle, maybe the lead looks better without citations. Maybe not. But in practice? Really? Two citations? much cleaner? I don't know about all that.

Apparently we browse Wikipedia in a fundamentally different way. I lead-surf. I jump between articles. I click on links in the lead without reading the body. Or I control-click, leave and come back. I'm skittish. I don't linger. Does that mean that I am not worthy of accomodation? Because what you're saying here, IMO, is that readers who don't read past the lead aren't worthy of our time. Well, damn. That's, like, a lot of readers, at least according to meta:Research:Which parts of an article do readers read and this.

Simply put: different people view Wikipedia differently. IMO we should cater to what people actually do in practice (read the lead and leave) and not to what we actually want people to do in theory (read the body). I don't think we can or should expect readers to want to read an article of this length, or to dig through it to find information, and readers who don't do so/don't want to do so are IMO as worthy of accomodation as any other reader. I don't see why a reader who doesn't read past the lead is, in practice, any different from a reader who does, and it feels wrong to me, the idea that we should make decisions based on how we want readers to act (assuming that there is a way that editors generally want readers to act) and not based on how people actually act. Cessaune [talk] 05:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you genuinely think that the lead feels noticeably less cluttered without the citations? Yes. I try to be genuine whenever I can.

But I'm speaking generally about lead citations, not those two alone. No, I don't think the removal of those two cites significantly improved lead cleanliness. I'm talking about the larger issue.

If we can find a consensus for those two, or reach one here, by all means restore them. Until then, I oppose and will wait for other voices. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

In this case I would rather operate on what happens in practice. There's been two citations in the lead for like two years, and that number was unlikely to change. Sure, maybe citations make a lead feel more cluttered, but we weren't at that point and we are very unlikely to get to that point. Cessaune [talk] 12:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

As I am unsure it should even be in the body I am sure it should not be in the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

It's an article about the Presidential Greatness Project. We discussed the survey briefly but it didn't make it into the article, so IMO we shouldn't use the cite in the lead. It isn't mentioned at Historical rankings of presidents of the United States, either, although they do mention the 2018 survey. Removing the citations against the current consensus — shouldn't we establish a new consensus first? (For the record, I also oppose having citations in the lead, "strongly", to use TFG's favorite adverb.) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Removing the citations against the current consensus — shouldn't we establish a new consensus first? Absolutely, if a consensus exists to include those two cites. No one has found one yet. Care to try? ―Mandruss ☎ 10:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

No, and yay. I thought we had a consensus to add cites to the sentence but after taking another look at #58: yay. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Just a reminder in case someone still has a fair mind...

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

---

The 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.

---

This is an unbelievably biased article. In the opening paragraph, so much attention is given to trumps "business failures" and bankruptcy filings, without mentioning he is one of the richest men who ever lived (a billionaire). Would someone who never knew trump surmise that he is a billionaire from that opening summary paragraph? And unfortunately, it gets worse from there as you read on.

I know that this will fall on deaf ears, but I want to remind the original purpose of wikipedia: to document and convey information. Not to lead people into thinking a certain way. 71.247.12.176 (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

This comment does make one specific point, and we should answer specific points: In the opening paragraph, so much attention is given to trumps "business failures" and bankruptcy filings, without mentioning he is one of the richest men who ever lived (a billionaire). We talk about Trump's wealth at Donald Trump#Wealth and Wealth of Donald Trump. His net worth has never been confirmed, but is estimated in the billions. So, we give it attention. Should it be in that first paragraph of the lead? We could add a sentence at the end to the effect of Trump's net worth is estimated at if there's consensus for that. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

To be frank, no it should not, as we do not even have any real idea how much it is. Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I do not think it should either, but it is only fair that we consider it. I find it interesting that this IP takes it as a given that he actually is one of the richest men who ever lived (a billionaire) based mostly on Trump's word. But there is also the Forbes estimate. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Which changes. He may well be one of the richest men who have ever lived, but then what we care about is how he compares to todays mega-billionaires, not every human who has ever lived. Trump is not in the top 10, or the top 500. Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The IP address is making a specific point without referring to a single reliable source to support it. Trump isn’t notable for being "one of the richest men who ever lived" or one of the richest people today, just for claiming to be "really rich". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I remember a time when a post with this accusatory tone would have been summarily removed without reply. One properly gets as much respect as they give. Any suggestions for improvement could have and should have been handled separately so as to allow early archival—we need this stuff off the page as soon as possible short of shooting on sight. Now, per #13, early archival is off the table. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Pity we must leave such silliness like one of the richest men who ever lived here. Jeff Bezos is worth 50 times Trump. John D. Rockefeller was worth over 100 times as much as Trump. That's just the US. Mansa Musa was likely worth far more. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

And that's assuming that the commonly given figures for Trump's worth are roughly correct. The longer these trials go on, the more convinced I am that his worth has been highly inflated. I wouldn't b surprised if the true value is only about $500 million. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I stretched out and worked my AGF muscle on this one. Let them see on r/TheDonald or whatever forum they congregate on that we will consider specific ideas, even with some of that accusatory tone, and not everything falls on "deaf ears". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Here's a general question that may or may not have some relevance. Is it OK to write a Wikipedia article that is biased against a terrible person who is a threat to society? Bob K31416 (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

We are not here to WP:RGW. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Whatever the forum, they’re probably trading tips on how to successfully troll WP editors: accuse them of bias, add a sentence that sounds as if it was written for Colbert’s opening monologue, and sit back and watch them argue amongst themselves on the Talk page. "Surmise" — yeah, that’s what WP is about, thoughts or ideas based on scanty evidence, or no evidence, as in this case. For one of the richest persons of all time, see Fugger family#Jakob Fugger "the Rich". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

When the opening message said, "mentioning he is one of the richest men who ever lived (a billionaire)," do you think it may be saying that Trump was a billionaire and that alone makes him one of the richest men that ever lived? It looks like putting in the lead that Trump is a billionaire would satisfy the opening message. I'll leave it to you to add to the lead that Trump is a billionaire, if you agree that it should be put there. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

That’s not my decision to make — I don’t own this page, no matter what another editor said recently . According to consensus #5, the lead once mentioned that Forbes estimates his net worth to be [$x.x] billion. It was superseded by consensus #47 which says to "not mention Trump's net worth or Forbes ranking (or equivalents from other publications) in the lead, nor in the infobox". Forbes is our source for Trump’s net worth in the "Wealth" section, and it’s probably the source for his net worth reported in other RS, so which source would we use? IMO, his billionaire status, real or not, isn’t one of the most important points of his bio per MOS:LEAD. (Billionaires who are (estimated to be) worth between $2.3 billion and $4.7 billion are a dime a dozen these days.) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article could include "billionaire" in the following way.

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and billionaire who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.

Good luck. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. We don't do that for Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk in the first sentence who are worth vastly more. 60 years ago, Sen. Dirksen said "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money." I could find some use for a billion. But since he's not on the "richest" lists, not sure it's lead worthy. Certainly OK for the body. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Yet, there are many billionaires in wikipedia who are described as such first and foremost on their page.

And of course, shifting the topic to whether Trump is a billionaire or not is an attempt by the editors to avoid the smell of their own body odor; whether he is a billionaire or 500 million aire is irrelevant; in either case he is unbelievably rich relative to all human existence, and something a reader would not glean from the description, which disproportionately describe his business failures and bankruptcies. 71.247.12.176 (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Do we say that (say) Musk is one of the richest men who have ever lived? Slatersteven (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not arguing it needs to be stated explicitly; i am saying it is true, and that reading the article should, directly or indirectly, give that impression.

Reading the article as it is, it appears Trump is largely a failed businessman who likely doesn't have much money (specifically, the part about so many bankruptcies and business failures and lawsuits). To the articles credit it does mention "some successful ventures" by licensing his name (although even that is biased imo, as if to suggest his only success has come from trivialities - there is no mention of his massive real estate empire and world renowned trump tower).

My point is this article paints a fake, bad image of trumps wealth. And my accusation is that it does so because the authors of this article do not like trump, and want him to be regarded badly. I may be incorrect in that accusation; but regardless, a fair minded reader would believe the same thing, based on the current state of the article. 71.247.12.176 (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF and WP:RS and WP:CIV and this article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2024 (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.

Are you all sure you want to run the Talk page this way? I think it gives a bad impression of suppressing dissent. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

You think this nonsense needs to continue? Consensus does not require unanimity. I should've left this closed in the first place. In fact I probably should have undone your comment with the edit summary "closed is closed" rather than reply. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion was mostly carried by editors other than the IP. I think you made some good points as did others. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Repeatedly accusing editors of unfair bias has never gone anywhere, will never go anywhere, and can't go anywhere. Even where true, such editors are not going to suddenly find Jesus and change their ways because they have been called out. So why do it? This tone has continued through the IP's latest comment, unmitigated by I may be incorrect in that accusation, along with a lot of WP:NOR vio that has regrettably been enabled by others. I have no problem with "suppressing" that. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Our consensus list has no shortage of Trump-favorable consensuses that belie a claim of widespread anti-Trump bias at this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

1) I'm of the opinion that an involved editor who willingly engages in discussion should NEVER close a discussion, barring something truly extreme happening, and this sets a terrible precedent IMO.

2) Nothing the user did was egregious enough to warrant closure IMO. This is the exact kind of behavior that discourages new editors—engaging in discussion and then closing the discussion without even allowing the user time to read the policies that we linked.

3) I think that closing an active discussion is problematic at best. If we are willing to engage in discussion then that suggests that there is actually something worthy of discussion. If there wasn't something worthy of discussion here, then the discussion would have never taken place.

I think that any closure along these lines needs to be codified in the consensus list before it can be considered valid, and, as it stands, I would oppose such an item. Cessaune [talk] 14:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The OP and the title of this section both violate policies. And the eitor is now arguing at the Flat Earth article [4] that we shouldn't state the Earth is not flat, but leave it up to the reader to decide. Such time sinks cannot continue forever. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I do think it is a bit off to close a thread you are involved with,. but I agree with the close. "I am not arguing it needs to be stated explicitly; I am saying it is true, and that reading the article should, directly or indirectly, give that impression." killed it really, if they are not arguing for it to be said, but are arguing for us to say it, there is no agreement to be had. Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, time sinks cannot continue forever. But summarily closing a discussion as an involved editor is something that no one should ever do. And the points related to closure that are being made weren't brought up in the discussion or the edit summary. At the very least, we need to articulate why we are prematurely closing a thread in detail, which didn't happen. Cessaune [talk] 14:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't close the section. After it was closed and incorrectly continued, I moved the additional text into the close window. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

That's a distinction without a difference. And Muboshgu's rationale was valid, regardless of the outcome. Cessaune [talk] 14:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

A discussion is not supposed to continue after a close, so I moved the continuation into the close window. My edit summary stated: The IP can start a new topic if they find a source and argument that fits Wikipedia guidelines. How many angels are there on the head of a pin? O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Why not? If people think that restarting a discussion is warranted, then they can restart it. I don't see any reason why anyone should be barred from doing that. Cessaune [talk] 15:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

We already have the terrible precedent in consensus #61, and it has proven its value. Are you suggesting we should revisit #61? Muboshgu has stated their regret for keeping this open, and without that it would've been archived four days ago. Others just followed Muboshgu's lead—this kind of blue-sky, forum-like discussion is often hard to resist—and I doubt they would object to re-re-closure now. They are free to correct me. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Muboshgu's reopening nullified the original consensus #61 close, and to belatedly close based on #61 is not within the consensus item's scope IMO. The "terrible precedent" that I speak of isn't related to #61 at all. Replying with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias hardly makes you an involved editor; Objective3000 was definitely an involved editor by any reasonable metric. Cessaune [talk] 14:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I, Mandruss, an uninvolved editor, hereby endorse Objective3000's re-close. Happy now? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

In fact, no, per my original comment above. Cessaune [talk] 15:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I would be happy to see this reclosed again. And I am not inclined to stop the auto archiving again in the future. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I thought I'd look into psychology that might be related to talk pages and I happened on the Wikipedia article Groupthink. Here's an excerpt.

Groupthink requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore, groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup". Members of a group can often feel under peer pressure to "go along with the crowd" for fear of "rocking the boat" or of how their speaking out will be perceived by the rest of the group.

Bob K31416 (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

When you can't come up with an argument that fits Wikipedia policies and guidelines, just insult everybody. DJT is not one of the richest men who ever lived as claimed by the OP. This has nothing to do with groupthink. It's simply false. Your response shows the value in section closes that go off the rails. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Unuseful here, as you could call any set of like-minded editors an "ingroup" or an "outgroup". A better place for such discussion might be WP:VPM, but you wouldn't get much community support for an idea that effectively undermines or erodes WP:CONSENSUS. This is just more forum-like discussion, now taken to a meta level. It's not what article talk pages are for. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Bob, you haven't edited this article in ages, and back when you did you used to lose argument after argument, i'd wager that greater 90% of the positions you staked out here were failures. you coming back like this now just reeks of bitterness. do everyone, including yourself a favor, just unwatch this article. ValarianB (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, this isn't the first time that Bob has popped their head around here in recent months. And your final sentence is bordering on WP:UNCIVIL, maybe. Cessaune [talk] 21:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Look at the last many posts in this thread. Do you actually think there is anything here that is not a waste of editor time? It should be closed. As I said in my edit summary when I moved the close bottom, it can be restarted in a new section given an actual reliably sourced rational. Wouldn't that have been better instead of endless, gotcha wikilawyering? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

In fact I'm inclined to agree with you, but what you're saying is tangential to my point. Cessaune [talk] 04:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2024

In more than one place they refrence the 2020 elections but do not include a hyperlink in the word to 2020 United States presidential election Page which i think would be useful in context for further reading. For example:

into positions of power at the Pentagon after the November 2020 election, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs other felonies committed in an effort to overturn the state's 2020 election results. Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges.

I would think it would be useful to change that to include the hyperlink to the 2020 United States presidential election Wikipedia page. Yadahour (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

That is because we only need one link to it in the article, see wp:overlink. Slatersteven (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Current consensus section on this page

Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus seems to have an extremely long list that pretty much pushes everything down on this talk page permanently. I hatted the list at Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus but it seems @Mandruss preferred it this way? I guess the "frequent editors" on this page are used to this format, but I don't think anywhere on enWiki uses this.

I like hatted simply because that's what we do for nearly everything else that's permanent on talk (headings and such) so they continue being readable. Hatting would also be kinda a "best of both worlds" as we keep having the consensus at a prominent place in this page, but it's hatted so everyone isn't forced to scroll through 3 screens just to get to any discussion here. Soni (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

forced to scroll through 3 screens just to get to any discussion here. ?? The ToC precedes the consensus list. Nobody "gets to any discussion here" by scrolling through the page (I hope). It's either via the ToC or the page history the ToC, the page history, or one's contribs page.

I don't think anywhere on enWiki uses this. So? Innovation is not evil. Talk:Joe Biden uses this, albeit on a much smaller scale. It should use it a lot more, imo, but I don't edit there. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Redacted 06:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Nobody "gets to any discussion here" by scrolling through the page (I hope). I actually do. I usually only use TOCs if I'm only reading a specific section on a talk page, otherwise it's just easier to skim through the entire page to quick-check discussions.

But also... What purpose does the unhatted consensus section serve? What is the benefit we get from having it fully expanded instead? We can still link to the section as normal, and show/hide is pretty intuitive regardless (we use them in the consensus section ourselves) Soni (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think you're unusual in that respect. As I said in my revert, there hasn't been another peep about this in 8 years (to my knowledge). In any case, it takes me all of five seconds to scroll through the consensus list. Is your time really that valuable?

Just (1) greater visibility, and (2) no need to click [show]. Obviously, different editors will weigh these things differently, which is why we're here.

that's what we do for nearly everything else that's permanent on talk (headings and such) - I don't know what hatted headings you're referring to. Certainly not section headings. As for the "top material", or whatever you call it (banners?), the consensus list is actually essential to the day-to-day operation of this article. Apples and oranges.

Here's what we know for sure; the rest is unsubstantiated speculation.

1. One editor (you) has to scroll through the list.
2. Every editor using the list would have to click [show], every time they used it.

Do the math. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Do the math. Thanks for the lesson in condescension. I definitely needed to answer my question ("greater visibility and no need to click [show]").

As I said in my revert, there hasn't been another peep about this in 8 years (to my knowledge). As someone said above, nobody has apparently raised concerns about Presidency article's size in 4 years. Does not mean we don't need to change it.

I see a simple change that'd improve the readability, I proposed it. Now if other editors prefer it hatted/unhatted, they can say so, and I'll defer to consensus. Soni (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Me too. I've pretty much exhausted my arguments. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I personally don't think that it's a big deal, bt you do raise some valid points. I don't think anyone is substantially helped or harmed by it in its current state though. Cessaune [talk] 12:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Soni: Why don't you just click the first item underneath "Consensus" in the table of contents and skim through the entire page from there? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it's clutter and should be hatted with the explanatory text: "This is a list of the results of previous discussions on this talk page that reached a consensus on various issues for this article." I think the clutter is more apparent to editors who are new to the article than it is to editors who have been living with it for years. It has some similarity to the real life problem of hoarding, where the hoarding homeowner just gets used to the clutter and doesn't want to change. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Clutter right back at ya. Consensus is one of the basic concepts of Wikipedia editing, no definition necessary. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Instead of displaying the long list it would look like this.

Current consensus

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
[[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .

List of some previous discussions that reached a consensus.

Bob K31416 (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I like it unhatted because then I don't have to click it open when referencing a violated consensus in an edit summary. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I made the change of hatting just to let editors have some experience with it so they can better decide whether to hat or not to hat. I request that we leave it hatted for 3 days before anyone reverts it. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Hatted or unhatted, I would prefer any obsolete or superceded consensi to be separated out or just removed from the list.

The main reason for keeping the full list is searchability, so that shouldn't be affected if all obsolete items get removed in a separate hatnote. At least the least important third of the list will no longer be a deal then Soni (talk) 11:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose that, but thankfully it's off-topic in this particular thread. Experience has taught us that it's best to put separate issues in separate threads, to the extent possible. You're likely to get more thorough consideration in a separate discussion. The two issues are related, I grant, but there's no real need to combine them in one thread. A new subsection of this section would be fine, and then the two would be sure to be archived together. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I like it unhatted because then a search of the page for the key words will show that content in the FAQ. When it's hatted, it doesn't show. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

(It took a bit of effort to understand your comment, since we don't call it a FAQ.) That's another good point; collapsed content is invisible to browser Find functions. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Thi is a very coherent argument. It's nice to be able to reference a previous consensus by simply pressing ctrl+f and typing in '58.' or something similar. Cessaune [talk] 00:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

To be clear and fair, collapsing doesn't prevent the use of ctrl+f; it just requires an extra step (clicking [show]). So this argument kind of falls under a point previously made: Every editor using the list would have to click [show], every time they used it. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Oops! My bad. Fortunately, you all got my point. Hatted content is hidden from view AND from searches. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I unhatted. It's been three days + one. Low participation, 4:2 in favor of status quo (ante doesn't really apply for "letting editors have some experience with it" but what do I know). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Trump gets news now for recent wealthy gain

@Mandruss: You reverted me here: [5]. I did not mention the Forbes list, but instead Forbes news source. There are other reliable sources saying the same information about his sudden wealth gain from putting the company that does Truth Social on the stock market.

On March 26th, 2024, Forbes reported that Trumps wealth rose from $2.3 billion to $6.4 billion after Trump Media & Technology Group was put on the stock exchange. Dream Focus 01:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

We need to take a longer view look at the stock than just IPO day. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe the whole point of consensus #5 is to avoid having to track net worth at more than annual frequency. Also WP:NOTNEWS. See similar discussions on this page, here and here. If Forbes reports ~$6B in this year's annual evaluation, we'll certainly update the article to reflect that. Likewise, if it subsequently falls by billions before their 2025 evaluation, we'll certainly over-report it until then. So this methodology can work in Trump's favor or not, depending on which direction the wind blows between annual evaluations, but always in Wikipedia's favor. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

It still a well covered news event, so it doesn't matter if its included in any ranking or whatnot, this notable event should be included. Dream Focus 02:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS: "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style." WP:ONUS: "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included." We have ignored other "well covered" interim net worth changes, and it matters not that this is a big one. Being well-covered doesn't require inclusion, far from it (common misconception that needs to be stamped out). We have a perfectly legitimate local consensus against your rationale on this issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

If the 2023 annual list is any indication, Forbes will be publishing their 2024 annual list in April. I have no idea whether they'll use the guesstimates of the day or some sort of average. Whatever it is, we'll update our article accordingly and live with that until Forbes publishes the 2025 annual list (or until a new consensus forms), even if and when the Trump Media stock crashes and burns in the fall. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello! First post! I just wanted to remind everyone that Trump’s net worth is nothing less than the subject of one of his lawsuits -- the one in Manhattan unless I am much mistaken. It is risky to interpret his real wealth in an encyclopedia when the subject is currently being litigated! A disclaimer would not be out of place here if you absolutely must publish a dollar amount certain (I wouldn’t). That’s my 465 ¢. ;) Andicu2 (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

And this, people, is why we wait. Trump’s Net Worth Falls by $1 Billion as His Media Company’s Stock Plunges Zaathras (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense. Its still an import news item that should be included, then updated as necessary. We don't update wealth constantly that keeps fluctuating, but we aren't just mentioning a number, but listing details about a notable event in the person's life. Dream Focus 01:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

(Hint: The word "nonsense" doesn't strengthen an argument.) ―Mandruss ☎ 05:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Which has not aged well, this is why wp:news exists, to stop us from having to update something every week. Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

We are not a newspaper. We are an encyclopedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I took a closer look at the source provided by you, i.e., I read the article instead of just the headline. Quote: "Trump’s net worth dropped from $2.5 billion on the 2023 Forbes billionaires list to $2.3 billion on this year’s soon-to-be-released edition, knocking him down more than 200 spots, to No. 1,438." Forbes published the 2024 rankings today and, sure enough, there's Trump at #1,438. I updated the "Wealth" section to reflect that ranking. Kind of an unexpected development but it looks as though Trump will have to suffer through the indignity of being #1,438 for a year. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea whether they'll use the guesstimates of the day or some sort of average. $2.3B "annual" at the same time as $5.9B "real-time" (both "as of 4/2/24"). I guess your question has been answered. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Overlinks?

Re: [6]

The relevant guideline is MOS:OVERLINK (not that a guideline is required for something like this; we are allowed to use reasoning independent from "rules").

An article is said to be overlinked if it contains an excessive number of links, making it difficult to identify those likely to aid a reader's understanding. A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from.

At MOS:BUILD:

Ask yourself, "How likely is it that the reader will also want to read that other article?"

For one example:

In September 1983, Trump purchased the New Jersey Generals, a team in the United States Football League.

The first link is relevant to Trump's biography; he purchased the Generals. The second link, however, is not; that the Generals were in the USFL is a mere aside too tangential to the article subject to link. On the outside chance a reader wants to read about the USFL, it's linked in the first sentence at New Jersey Generals.

As for the news orgs links, again, it's unlikely a reader will want to read about one; they are here to read about Trump, not The Washington Post. If they do, it's linked in the citation. citation (this also brings the MOS:DUPLINK principle into play). ―Mandruss ☎ 04:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC) Redacted 05:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Here's my logic: there's no guideline or policy that states that we have to get rid of the links, so as long as I can think of a reason, any reason at all, to keep the links, then I'd keep them. I can think of a relevant reason to keep each and every one I reinstated.

I've been thinking about linking on this page for a long time and have come up with the idea that we need a local methodology, a reference sheet or something that tells us exactly which types of things should and shouldn't be linked. Cessaune [talk] 18:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I can think of a relevant reason to keep each and every one I reinstated. Ok, let's start with USFL for example. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

we need a local methodology... - Can't imagine how that could be codified, beyond "do not link the name of a news org linked in a supporting citation". Agree that it would help; consistency within an article is generally worth pursuing. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

As a reader of the Trump enwiki page, I don't necessarily want to read about the USFL. What's far more likely is the impulsive link hover-over, to get the little lead blurb and accompanying image (not everybody has page previews enabled, but I do and I find it very useful). In reality, I would definitely want to hover over the link to see the preview. I don't really know what the USFL is and I don't necessarily want to navigate away from the page to figure that out, so being able to read a little information about it without having to leave the page is nice. For a link such as the NFL, an organization that I am familiar with, my general assumption, and this goes for all organizations/businesses, is that not everyone is familiar with it, in the same way that it's reasonable to assume that not everyone is familiar with the English Premier League. The only removal justification I can think of, the fact that more links = more visual clutter, doesn't really apply here IMO, and everything else is just an interpretation of vague MOS suggestions, suggestions that I believe are way too restrictive.

A local methodology: for example we could say link all people, don't link news orgs, link all places. I don't know. Just something to refer to, for consistency's sake.

Also, how is anyone gonna know that an organization is linked in a citation? That wouldn't be my first assumption, or even a guess. Cessaune [talk] 07:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 April 2024

Donald Trump attended Fordham University for two years before he transferred to the University of Pennsylvania. Owalatumbler (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

That's exactly what is said in the Early life section. Liu1126 (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

 Already done M.Bitton (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Fire at St Johns Church

The article states; "....where protesters had set a small fire the night before....". The Washington Post sources are behind a pay wall so I have not read them. However, the ABC source says:"...where a small fire caused damage to its basement during protests the night before...". I seem to recall news coverage/discussions at the time that the protestors were not responsible for the small basement fire. So, I think we can mention the fire but not lay blame to the protestors. What did the Fire Dept report state? Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 12:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• This ATF report is interesting Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 12:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The main article has more info on the fire in the basement nursery of the parish house. The sources say "there was a small fire", "a fire was set", etc., so I suppose we could change the wording to "where a small fire had been set during the protests the night before" but I don't really see that it makes much difference. You can find most WaPo articles on the Wayback Machine, although sometimes you have to open several of the archived versions until you find one without the paywall notice. This is the article; doesn't mention the fire except for a WH spokesman saying that "rioters attempted to burn down" the church. Your link to the ATF press release is missing a hyphen. This one works. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikilinks in 6th paragraph of lead

Hello, I would like to propose the following paragraph include wikilinks to Impeachment in the United States, the First impeachment of Donald Trump, and the Second impeachment of Donald Trump: "Trump is the only American president to have been impeached twice. After he tried to pressure Ukraine in 2019 to investigate Biden, he was impeached by the House of Representatives for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted by the Senate in February 2020. The House impeached him again in January 2021 for incitement of insurrection. The Senate acquitted him in February. Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history."

I would like a wiklink to appear on or around the word "impeached" in the first sentence with a link to Impeachment in the United States. This seems like an appropriate destination considering the article's subject and the political aspect. I would like for another wikilink to appear at or around the word "impeached" in the second sentence, which states, "After he tried to pressure Ukraine in 2019 to investigate Biden, he was impeached by the House of Representatives for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress." This would be a wikilink to First impeachment of Donald Trump. Given the context, this wikilink seems appropriate to add. I would finally like to add a third wikilink in the sentence, "The House impeached him again in January 2021 for incitement of insurrection." This wiklink would also be at or about the word "impeached" in the sentence given and would not change any words visible to the reader. It would simply add a link to the WP article for the Second impeachment of Donald Trump.

I have previously added wikilinks for all instances listed above, but all were reverted. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 06:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

As per discussion at my UTP, I oppose the first link per MOS:OVERLINK bullet 1, and the second and third links per MOS:EGG. If my faulty memory serves, the last two (or less EGGy versions thereof) have previously been added and removed, possibly more than once. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that impeachment justifies a wikilink or two (or three) in the main article lead. Trump is a unique case in that he is the only United States president to be impeached twice. Even if the first link fails MOS:OVERLINK, the second and third links should be added due to the context they provide to the reader. I understand that links deeper in the body of the article do point to the same targets, but having these wikilinks in the lead can provide crucial context to readers who do not wish to read the article in its entirety. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 06:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

He was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, but not the U.S. Senate. To not highlight this misleads readers into thinking he was impeached by both.

The majority of the body of this explanation has been proven false, for example, the Russia influence in the election was proven to be false and actually a purchased dossier by the FBI and democrats. It's disappointing that Wikipedia will allow such misinformation to persist as a scene in this biased opinion rather than a factual resource 2603:6081:61F0:1250:2CCB:3396:134:9761 (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

He was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, but not the U.S. Senate. Exactly what the article says. Otherwise, please read: Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias and come back when you have (1) a suggestion for a specific change to the article, and (2) sources to back it up. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Of course he wasn't impeached by the Senate, the Senate doesn't impeach anyone. The Senate conducts an impeachment trial. These ARE NOT the same thing. Just as an indictment is not the same as a trial in court. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, I am open to suggestions on alternative placements for the aforementioned wikilinks that comply with MOS:EGG in a manner that the community sees fit. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 06:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Trump is the only American president to have been impeached twice. After he tried to pressure Ukraine in 2019 to investigate Biden, he was impeached by the House of Representatives for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted by the Senate in February 2020. The House impeached him again in January 2021 for incitement of insurrection. The Senate acquitted him in February. Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history. Satisfies EGG and, apparently, was already proposed by Mandruss. Cessaune [talk] 16:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

"Proposed" by Mandruss (in the UTP discussion) merely as an illustration of the EGG concept. No particular support implied. I'm not convinced we need yet two more links to other articles in the lead. Where are lblinks when we need them?? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

They've been shelved (for now [and possibly forever {but hopefully not}]). Impeachment, of all things, deserves a link. Come on. It isn't every day that a POTUS gets impeached. Cessaune [talk] 20:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

And, I would also support a link to impeachment (Trump is the only American president to have been impeached twice). Cessaune [talk] 20:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Count me neutral. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

i would support linking to the two impeachment Iff the links to the House and Senate are dropped.

Trump is the only American president to have been impeached twice. After he tried to pressure Ukraine in 2019 to investigate Biden, he was impeached by the House of Representatives for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted by the Senate in February 2020. The House impeached him again in January 2021 for incitement of insurrection. The Senate acquitted him in February. Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history.

thus a net zero wikilinking. ValarianB (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Why drop the links? Senate (disambiguation) links to nine pages, and House of Representatives links to twenty-nine. Cessaune [talk] 14:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Concur — net zero wikilinking, replace existing two links. The links to Federal impeachment in the United States and the House and Senate pages are in the body and presumably on First impeachment of Donald Trump and Second impeachment of Donald Trump. Cessaune, what do you mean? The current links are House of Representatives and Senate. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

My point is that there are a lot of different Senates and even more House of Representatives across the world, and a direct link to a specific one is nice.

Removing the links to the pages makes it harder for readers to get to those pages, considering the fact that typing in Senate or House of Representatives doesn't bring you to US Senate or US House of Representatives (and, surprisingly, neither United States Senate nor United States House of Representatives show up as suggested articles in the search box). Without links in the lead are two options: 1) dig through Senate, Senate (disambiguation) and/or House of Representatives to get to the page, or 2) know what to search for. United States Senate is a handful to type, as is United States House of Representatives, and I wouldn't assume that readers would know to type US instead of United States as they might assume that that wouldn't be a valid redirect.

I don't see a compelling reason to remove the links, and, in fact, the idea of net zero wikilinking seems kind of arbitrary. Clicking a link takes two seconds. I don't think that we should take them away from readers simply because... I don't even really know what the reasoning is. Because we want less links in the lead? Well, why? Cessaune [talk] 16:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

English language wikipedia, article is about an american president. it is a natural assumption that we're talking about our senate and house, no need for links. ValarianB (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not at all the point. Everyone knows that we're talking about the US Senate and the US House of Representatives. The point is that people may want to read those articles, and they're not especially easy to get to.

My question is, what is the actual issue with including those links? Cessaune [talk] 20:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it goes to the reader steering issue. Each new link in the lead (where there is related body content, unlike e.g. House of Representatives) encourages readers to bypass the body, just a little more than before. Lblink would be best, no link would be second best. But still neutral. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I now see that those links might be referring specifically to House and Senate links. If so, my comment is out of place but still relevant to the overall discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to disagree with this line of reasoning. Yes, it's theoretically better for readers to read the article, but IMO it isn't better to stop readers from reading other articles to further that goal. If the point is to allow the reader to gain information, lblink > normal link > no link. Cessaune [talk] 03:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Well at least we agree that lblink is first. That's something, even if irrelevant here since we don't have lblink (yet). Sorry for the digression. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The point is that people may want to read those articles [...] My question is, what is the actual issue with including those links?

MOS:OVERLINK: An article is said to be overlinked if it contains an excessive number of links, making it difficult to identify those likely to aid a reader's understanding. A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from. So please explain how reading about the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate would help a reader understand the life of Donald Trump. Far too tangential to the article subject.

As of this writing, the lead omits those House and Senate links, so this may seem both late and pointless. I think it needed to be said for the record.

No doubt, the principle is violated many, many times in the article. Too many editors think it's a great idea to link just about anything that can be linked. (Links are cool; look what I can do with just four characters. Hey, a reader might want to read about that, we shouldn't presume anything, and better safe than sorry. Much easier to link this than to have to actually think about the OVERLINK principle.) The article could bear some major link-trimming. But the lead is the most important in these matters, and I don't see a lot of other compelling violations in the lead. I wonder if reading about Hillary helps a reader better understand Trump's life. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm of the mindset that we should always link to people if possible, at least once. Cessaune [talk] 09:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

This seems to have gone on a tangent about what links are and are not acceptable and whether net zero wikilinking should or shouldn't be the protocol (I am not aware of any hard limit policies or guidelines on inclusion of wiklinks in lead sections, so to me this reads like a straw man.). I'd like to bring this conversation back to focus. Being twice impeached from the highest office in the U.S. is a serious charge, one that was unheard of until several years ago. With the very small number of impeachments of presidents of the U.S., both articles for Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton (the only other two presidents impeached) have impeachment wikilinks in their lead sections. On the article for Donald Trump, impeachment is not linked in any form of the word until the body. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 05:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

This seems to have gone on a tangent Very common. Smaller issues often go to overarching larger issues, which are more important in the greater scheme, and the larger issues usually don't come up without being triggered by the smaller ones. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it's very common. I've been an editor here long enough to have seen my fair share. It's good to acknowledge the small issues with the large ones. Would you care to comment on my main point though? — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 05:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I've said about all I care to about the smaller issue. I'm a larger issue kinda guy. I've stated that I'm neutral on the smaller issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

So why did I revert you if I was neutral? Fair question. I wasn't that neutral then. And there was the knowledge, largely unconscious, that very little change to this article's lead, beyond minor grammatical improvements and such, is accepted without discussion—so we would have ended up here anyway and I just saved a little time. We have, after all, seen some opposition here besides mine, no? ―Mandruss ☎ 06:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

While I'm all for giving a rest to debates when the topic becomes argued ad nauseam, given all that has been said and done over the past days, your acceptance of these three additional wikilinks to the lead is still questionable. I'll consider that your opinion may have swayed since your original revert, but I'm not sure in which direction. I'll say that I'm not holding out on your opinion alone from adding them back myself, but I would like to get a community consensus beforehand. Your assertion that, "Each new link in the lead (where there is related body content, unlike e.g. House of Representatives) encourages readers to bypass the body, just a little more than before", falls apart as an argument in regards to lead section guidelines on linking. Links are how we build the web, after all. I am also unclear about what you consider to be smaller and larger issues. No one in this topic has offered an explanation for the non-inclusion of these wikilinks to my understanding. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 06:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

No one in this topic has offered an explanation for the non-inclusion of these wikilinks to my understanding. Well I'm too lazy to review this long discussion in the hopes of refuting that claim, so I'll tell you what. I'll self-revert, we'll turn back the clock three days, and we'll see if anybody else reverts you. Couldn't be any more reasonable than that. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I rereverted. See my remarks above. Additionally: three links saying "impeached", each one targeting a different page, looks like an Easter basket with some MOS:EGGs. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

No harm in that. I think the wikilinks read better the way they are now compared to how they were recently. Even my own suggestions weren't perfect. I'm glad that the article has more precise targets for wikilinks than it once had. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 06:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Possible bias

The following needs references/citations, otherwise it sounds Bias: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist and many as misogynistic." RainbowBambi (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The article's lead summarizes its body content, and citations for verifiability are placed in the body. In the case you cited, the backup content is at Donald Trump#Racial views and Donald Trump#Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Does consensus item 58 apply here? "Use inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements." Bob K31416 (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Strictly speaking per 58, one could add citations there, subject to normal BRD (58 therefore seems a bit pointless to me, as that would be the case without it). I'd be on the oppose side. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

As I interpret it, consensus 58 essentially says that an attempt to reach a consensus to exclude all cites in the lead failed. It doesn't mean that cites can be added without being subject to challenge; rather, merely that such challenges can't rest on the argument that we don't put cites in the lead. I could oppose without using that argument. This is all moot unless and until someone boldly adds one or more cites. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

That is clearly loaded language, it needs to be more neutral RainbowBambi (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

That is not what you said in your opening comment. See the WP:NPOV policy and Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. The statement would be improper if the words "characterized as" were not present. We are not using wikivoice for that statement. See also current consensus item 30, in which a consensus was reached for exactly that language minus the misogyny part. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Consensus #51 covers the misogyny part. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

It is neutral, because the text is saying how his comments and actions have been interpreted. It neither endorses nor contradicts the interpretation. Furthermore, there is nothing controversial about those interpretations. TFD (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be quite difficult indeed to argue that the current text is not neutral. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Were any of his comments and actions anti-racist? Bob K31416 (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Well I just now heard him strike out against racism by calling all of his prosecutors racists. Seriously, racists make what could be called anti-racist statements. This has no meaning. In any case, we merely state what RS state, as is the way of WP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Have you ever heard that when Trump opened Mar-a-Lago, he welcomed Jewish members, African-Americans, and gay couples, unlike other Palm Beach clubs which prohibited them from joining? Bob K31416 (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

[7] O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

"When he opened Mar-a-Lago, Trump welcomed Jewish members, African-Americans, and gay couples, who had been prohibited from joining other Palm Beach clubs."Town & Country

"Mr. Trump’s arrival was greeted with sneers by the Palm Beach elite, and he opened up Mar-a-Lago’s membership to Jews and African-Americans, who had been excluded from other members-only establishments. He was also the first club owner on the island to admit an openly gay couple." NY Times

And as far as I know he hasn't changed this policy since it was opened many years ago. If he did, it might be awkward with regard to his orthodox jewish son-in-law and former white house adviser Jared Kushner, and to his daughter Ivanka who converted to judaism around the time when she married him. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Did you read my entire link? This is a well-known story. In any case, if it belongs anywhere it is in the Trump racism article and should include the entire story. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't mean to lecture. But a white man can have a black girlfriend and still be a racist. A man can marry a woman and still be a misogynist. Indeed that's rather common. Let us not draw our own conclusions but use reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Your source is disputing a Facebook post that has misinformation. It doesn't dispute the fact that Trump opened Mar-a-Lago as a private club without discrimination, which went against the norm for other clubs in the city. I think your source may have tried to imply that Trump would have discriminated if it didn't hurt his business. I see no evidence for that. Presenting your source confuses the issue because it is about some Facebook post, rather than the information in the two reliable sources I presented. I welcome your response, but that will be the end of this discussion for me. Enjoy your editing. Bob K31416 (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The source was based on other sources that we consider RS. Indeed, this is a quite old, well known episode. Mar-a-Lago was not zoned for a resort or club. It was zoned as a private residence. He used his floor of lawyers to get around the zoning violation by declaring discrimination. Believe what you wish. But claiming that this means he is not a racist is OR. We don't do that. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Trump University - excessive detail tab

The brief discussion was archived, the "excessive detail" tag remains in place. Recapping item 3 on Trump University:

1. removal of longstanding content
2. partially reinserted
3. tagged as excessive detail
4. shortened here

I didn't remove the tag when I removed part of the sentence, removing it now under the assumption that it's a dead issue. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Per that discussion, I've removed the case value. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

And you've restored it, so it seems the issue is not dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Third opinion on "excessive detail" tag needed

• Longstanding content: In 2004, Trump co-founded Trump University, a company that sold real estate training courses priced from $1,500 to $35,000. trimmed to say In 2004, Trump co-founded Trump University, a company that sold real estate training courses.
• Shortened to: In 2004, Trump co-founded Trump University, a company that sold real estate seminars for up to $35,000.

Is the tag justified? As I said in the previous discussion, such hefty fees for seminars that were adjudged to be basically worthless is a relevant detail IMO. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

That tag is about wordiness, and, despite its name, not about the level of information in a given sentence. Since that sentence is about as short as it can be without removing information, the tag isn't used correctly.

That aside, I think since the "university" was involved in a number of lawsuits and allegations of misconduct, mentioning the unusually high price tag is relevant. Also, all six sources mention the $35,000 sum, and most do so at the beginning of the article. Since RS consider it to be relevant, it should be included here, as Wikipedia is a reflection of the sources it uses. Cortador (talk) 13:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

What leads you to the conclusion that the tag is not about level of information?

Wikipedia is a reflection of the sources it uses, but not a reflection of the level of detail in news articles specific to a particular facet of the topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Just read what the policy the excessive detail tag links to says.

Yes, it is. If all sources used deem a certain detail important, that detail should be included. Cortador (talk) 10:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

That belief is inconsistent with the relevant policy. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

How do "excessive detail" and "NPOV violation by giving undue weight to a minor aspect of a subject" even apply to four words in a two-paragraph, 141-word subsection? The material has been in the article since June 6, 2016. The six references were published between 2011 and 2016 and added to the article by different editors between February 2016 and September 2021, so it’s not as if someone sought out references to make a point. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Because this is excessive detail about a minor aspect of the subject in what is meant to be a high-level overview article. A lot of material ends up in this article because it is the news of the day, rather than because someone sets out specifically to introduce problems, but it needs curating either way. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

That's one opinion, with two opinions saying it's not excessive. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Please elaborate how "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" applies to information added eight years ago using a source which was then two years old, which addition sources covering a five-year period.

That said, your arguments have gone from the paragraph being too wordy to being imbalanced to being news reporting. With every reply, you come up with a new reason why this information should not be included, which does not add credence to your case. Cortador (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Parents in the infobox

Due to Fred's role in kickstarting Donald's business career, I feel that Donald's parents, Fred Trump and Mary Anne MacLeod Trump, are important enough to warrant direct mention in the infobox via the "parents=" parameter - especially since Donald's father was judged important enough to be mentioned in the lead. Koopinator (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I assume that we don't because they are covered by Family of Donald Trump in the "relatives" parameter. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there's no need to duplicate. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

They were removed in this edit. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Closing active discussions

What kind of conduct is necessary for us to close an active discussion? Does an uninvolved editor have to do it? Is there something specific that we should link to when doing so? I'd like for there to be a specific, actionable something to refer back to. Cessaune [talk] 21:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• I think any uninvolved editor should be allowed to close discussions, but not sure what circumstances would be okay for someone involved to. Clearly it's very much necessary to close discussions promptly, this talk seems to just have continous debates without a point. For now, I've closed the above discussion again Soni (talk) 08:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that an uninvolved editor can close an active discussion, provided that they leave a closing statement that specifically explains why they did so, pointing to at least one relevant policy/guideline, and provides an edit summary. Cessaune [talk] 22:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I've closed at least two sections on AN/I as non-admin, involved and they survived. Although it may be frowned upon, it can save editor time if the rational is reasonable. We have a process if you don't like a close. If the closure is vandalism, you can revert. If not, you can discuss with the closer on their TP. If that gets nowhere, you can ask for a closure review at AN. You can also create a new section if you have something new to add that isn't a repeat of an argument. Meanwhile you are not supposed to continue posting in a closed thread, as per instructions in the close template. Otherwise closure has no meaning. As for relevant policy/guideline, many threads that are closed are done so because they simply aren't going anywhere. In this case, the OP is also arguing on the Flat Earth TP that the Flat Earth article should not say the Earth is not flat. Others may disagree with my view. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with posting in a closed thread, provided that you aren't just re-arguing the points brought up. Talks of procedure and such beneath a close are fine IMO, as long as they are related to the topic at hand.

Sure, involved editors can close discussions, but I don't see any real reason to do so. Especially in the context of the previous close, where editors, including you, were replying and responding to the user. I think that we don't need involved editors to close discussions, as there are enough non-involved editors who can do the same, so we should avoid it as best as possible. AN is a step too far: we obviously don't need an admin to do what any one of us can do, if it's truly obvious that we need to close an active thread.

Ultimately, I'd just like to see better edit summaries and closure reasons. I think that a close should require a reason written out in the result= parameter, similar to consensus #61. Otherwise it's kind of a helpless feeling—to watch your active thread get shut down for vaguely defined reasons. We don't have to write essays. Maybe a sentence or two; something along the lines of "WP:SNOW—this discussion is going nowhere." Cessaune [talk] 02:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes an article on a contentious subject can be taken over by editors who have the same opinion with regard to the subject. Being human they may not be able to edit the article in an impartial way along the lines of NPOV. Individual users who can edit impartially or have their own contrary opinion on the subject are driven away in such an editing environment. So any time such an individual user shows up they are outnumbered and the discussion can be closed as pointless. It might be considered pointless because there is no way their suggestion will be accepted. Here's a recent example of ending such a discussion without a close Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_167#Operation_Warp_Speed. Also, your suggestion of closing with the reason "WP:SNOW—this discussion is going nowhere." should work every time in such an environment. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Yet another evidence-free, broad attack against editors by you. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Wrong article

North Korea? Abraham Accords? Go to the right article. It's that way --> --> --> Presidency of Donald Trump. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Operation Warp Speed

space4time3continuum2x thanks for catching those citation issues. Made that edit quickly. Presume you're fine with me re-adding the material with the proper DHHS references? Riposte97 (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

No. What's the importance of this Trump announcement for his top bio? I just found the two sentences you added in the "History" section of Operation Warp Speed, and "NIH ACTIV", "NIH RADx", and "BARDA" are as cryptic there as they were here. I assume "DHHS references" refers to DHHS press releases, i.e. primary sources, and Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources" WP:RSPRIMARY. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Riposte97, FYI at Operation Warp Speed I fixed a dead link, added NIH abbreviation for National Institutes of Health, and added footnotes/refs for the acronyms ACTIV and RADx. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Bob. I'll work up a new section using secondary sources and insert. Riposte97 (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I saw your section on the article page [8] and I think it looks good. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Riposte, in view of the rejection of your proposed addition up top, it will need explicit consensus before going in the article. And I too object for the same reason and also for its miscasting of Dr. Fauci's position. SPECIFICO talk 18:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

In the proposed Operation Warp Speed section [9] here's the part about Fauci along with the cite, which includes a Fauci quote,

Despite initial misgivings from some experts, including the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Anthony Fauci,^[462]

462. "Trump unveils 'warp-speed' effort to create coronavirus vaccine by year's end". The Guardian. 17 May 2020. Retrieved 29 April 2024. "There's no guarantee that the vaccine is actually going to be effective."

You might want to clarify why you think this miscasts Fauci's position. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Telling folks not to get their hopes up is not misgivings about pursuing a vaccine. SPECIFICO talk 20:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the transcript for Fauci's Senate testimony (see Dr. Anthony Fauci: (01:20:43) in [10]) and I would agree that the edit needs work with regard to Fauci. I think the point is that Fauci and others initially thought that the vaccine would take 12-18 months or longer to develop, whereas it was faster than expected. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Happy to just cut that clause entirely. SPECIFICO, would that address your concerns? Riposte97 (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it warrants mention in this bio, nor is it evident that the "warp speed" messaging and huge payouts to pharma providers sped the development of vaccines. The central facts of Trump's pandemic days are already covered. SPECIFICO talk 22:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Operation Warp Speed sped up the process by setting up and starting manufacturing before vaccine testing was completed.

Speaking on background during a conference call today, officials said that when creating a vaccine, things such as development, clinical trials and manufacturing typically would occur one after the other. In some cases, officials said, Operation Warp Speed will do them at the same time.

"We expect to be producing large quantities of vaccines while the clinical trials are still underway," one official said. "That is, when safety and efficacy have been demonstrated, there isn't a day's delay due to manufacturing ramp-up timelines. We will still complete all of the necessary clinical trials to determine safety and efficacy."[11]

Bob K31416 (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Riposte97, I think you did a good job of trying to include Operation Warp Speed but I do not think it has a chance of being included in the article with this kind of editing environment. There was a case of successfully including another item that met with similar opposition, but it required multiple attempts over years with a robust pursuit in the end by many editors who did not usually edit here. It got in as a minimal mention. And those editors moved on. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Hold on, I fail to see how an executive initiative which massively sped the pace of vaccine development, saving thousands of lives, doesn't belong here. There are dozens of articles from RS on OWS, and all seem to agree that the program was pivotal to vaccine development. Vaccines were the single greatest contributor to ending the pandemic. How is that not due? Riposte97 (talk) 12:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be in too. I don't think there is anything that can be done to change the minds of those here who are opposed to it. Anyhow, here's a couple of 2023 articles that I happened across.

How To Replicate The Success Of Operation Warp Speed, Federation of American Scientists (2023)

America Should Be More Like Operation Warp Speed, The Atlantic (2023)

I don't know if they will be of any help to you, but I thought they were interesting as far as how OWS is considered a success years afterward. In closing, I try to be careful about getting into discussions that take too much of my time. Lately I haven't been careful enough and I'll try to remedy that. Good luck and happy editing. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Two U.S.-centric opinions. "Project Lightspeed" was up and rolling in January 2020; clinical trials began in April, more than three weeks before the Trump administration's announcement. See also Katalin Karikó and Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

My god. There is nothing more American than accusing others of being myopic Americans. Mate, I’m Australian.

The rest of your comment is nonsensical. The Pfizer vaccine relied heavily on the logistical advantages of Operation Warp Speed, and the guaranteed purchase agreement offered by the US government. Katalin Kariko is an academic, not involved in vaccine development - besides which, she's American! Riposte97 (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

How did you get from The experts agree that Operation Warp Speed played a significant role in Moderna's development of a potential vaccine and "This is a bright spot in the pandemic response. I mean, the rest of it has been dismal," said Goodman to the proposed text: the program was a notable success, greatly shortening the time taken to develop effective vaccines against COVID-19? The cited source says that "experts agree that Operation Warp Speed played a significant role in Moderna's development of a potential vaccine".  Did you even read the article all the way down to "Pfizer self-funded" and "Initiative done in anything but warp speed"? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Rip and Bob, you would need to present secondary RS - preferably with the benefit and perspective of hindsight - to support your claims. I've seen no such assessments. The main fact is that RS studies have found that Trump focused on his personal political interests ahead of public safety. And they found that this cost America hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths. SPECIFICO talk 12:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, it is a fallacy to say that, because Trump focussed on his personal political interests during covid, we cannot include any information on things he did well. Obviously, I’m not saying we shouldn't include any of the copious information on his wrongdoing during the pandemic - that's well documented in the article.

I have already provided multiple RS on what an enormous success OWS was. Here is yet another, published last year: https://www.wsj.com/articles/we-need-more-operation-warp-speed-covid-cancer-diabetes-bureaucracy-fda-ace77028 Riposte97 (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Your source is an opinion by Casey Mulligan, former Trump appointee to head the Council of Economic Advisers and man who selectively cited stats from countries that supported his opinion of employees abusing paid sick leave while not citing stats from countries with even more generous paid sick leave that contradicted his opinion. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Once again, I have provided multiple sources, including those cited in my edit.

Nevertheless, here's another: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/03/21/operation-warp-speed-head-says-trump-administration-responsible-for-90-of-vaccine-rollout/?sh=53a83b751848 Riposte97 (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

"Another" i.e. another self-interested party's opinion? Please respond to the issues raised by dissenting editors. Please review WP:RS WP:V and WP:NPOV. You are getting replies, indicating a willingness to consider your proposal, but you would need to refute the criticism in the dissents. SPECIFICO talk 16:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it would be more productive to discuss specific content of the reliable sources, rather than people and nationalities related to them? Bob K31416 (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

bias / abraham accords

1) "He met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times but made no progress on denuclearization." what is the point of the end part? its like saying [in the lead for the cristiano ronaldo article]

"Ronaldo ... before signing with Manchester United in 2003, winning the FA Cup in his first season. He would also go on to win three consecutive Premier League titles [on a team that had won it like 5 times in the past 10 years], the Champions League [missing the penalty shootout in the final] and the FIFA Club World Cup [scoring only one goal];" You can just praise the achievement man.

2) looking at previous conversations, real human adults put too much effort into actively campaigning against a notable event being in the wikipedia lead of the guy who orchestrated it, mentioned in ONE SENTENCE (that specifico guy for one). just put the darn abraham accords in the lead and be done with this DannyM999x (talk) 07:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree it went nowhere so we should remove the whole passage about meeting NK leader. Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

• I oppose revisiting #44. This was an important element of foreign policy (North Korea's nuclear arsenal and the security of the Korean peninsula are, obviously, important), and a significant change from previous policy (no previous president had met a North Korean supreme leader, and Trump met three times). It is perfectly appropriate to include a single sentence in the lead section explaining what happened. Neutrality^talk 20:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  it should be in there but why mention he "made no progress on denuclearization?" seems like an attempt to spin it as a negative event. no other president even went close to north korea when they were in office DannyM999x (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  If it was an important event, seems a bit odd to not include just a few words on the result. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Instead of these nonspecific bias allegations, please suggest specific, policy-based improvements backed up by reliable sources — see Talk:Donald_Trump/Response_to_claims_of_bias for more information (consensus #61). Abraham Accords: also see consensus #65. Kim Jon Un: also see consensus #44. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The Abraham Accords are mentioned in the section Israel of this Trump article, along with a source. Another source is, [‘The dawn of a new Middle East’: Trump celebrates Abraham Accords with White House signing ceremony — The president also predicted the Palestinians “will come to the table” to negotiate a peace deal with Israel. In this source is, "[Netanyahu] praised Trump for helping mediate the agreements and encouraged more Arab states to sign the accords." Bob K31416 (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC) (I just now added this source to the article. diff Bob K31416 (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC))

Per our discussion on prior attempts to increase coverage of AA in this article: That source should not have been added. The entire article is narrating the self-serving talking points of Trump and Netanyahu and their cohort without any journalistic treatment of AA, its history, context, or objective significance. Please remove it and if you wish to add references, please find ones that discuss AA objectively. SPECIFICO talk 02:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

And do it in the Presidency article, not here. Presidency stuff should only get limited and short mention here, and most should get ZERO mention here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The source was removed by another editor. diff Bob K31416 (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The sentence doesn't need more than one RS. You can read older NYT and WaPo articles that may be paywalled at the Wayback Machine: NYT article. (Seems that Trump and Netanyahu were a little off with their glowing predictions for the future, no?) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 09:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you know of any way that you could put the link that you presented for the NY Times article into the cite? Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Looking on the article page, I found this cite [12], which has a form that could be useful here. We could use your NYT link to change the NYT cite to

Crowley, Michael (September 15, 2020). "Israel, U.A.E. and Bahrain Sign Accords, With an Eager Trump Playing Host". The New York Times. Archived from the original on November 12, 2020. Retrieved April 29, 2024.

Would you be agreeable to this? Bob K31416 (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I just now made the edit. diff Bob K31416 (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The edit was reverted. diff Your edit summary was, "The source isn't dead. Talk:Donald_Trump#Current_consensus #25: Do not add web archives to cited sources which are not dead." Note that in a previous message I gave a link to a cite in the article that did not have a dead link but used an archived version. [13] Also I looked at the discussion for consensus item #25 and the concern there was that all cites would have archived versions. In the two cases mentioned here, there are archived versions added only because the direct link has an obstacle to viewing the source. I think in these two cases of an obstacle to viewing the source, one case that is already in the article and one proposed for the article, there should be an archived version. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I just now restored it. diff Bob K31416 (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The edit was reverted. diff The edit summary was "does not appear tobe necessary", which did not appear to address the reason for the edit as discussed in my previous message before the last one. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Seeking clarity - @DannyM999x: Does the Abraham Accords have anything to do with Israel/Palestine conflicts? If so, it's a volatile topic, which we must be careful around. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)