Talk:Donald Trump

Highlighted open discussions

• None.

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 .

01. Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image. (Dec 2016, Jan 2017, Oct 2017, March 2020) (temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait, enforced when an official public-domain portrait was released on 31 October 2017)

02. Show birthplace as "Queens, New York City, U.S." in the infobox. (Nov 2016, Oct 2018, Feb 2021) "New York City" de-linked. (September 2020)

03. Omit reference to county-level election statistics. (Dec 2016)

04. Superseded by #15

Lead phrasing of Trump "gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College" and "receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide", without quoting numbers. (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

05. Use Trump's annual net worth evaluation and matching ranking, from the Forbes list of billionaires, not from monthly or "live" estimates. (Oct 2016) In the lead section, just write: Forbes estimates his net worth to be [$x.x] billion. (July 2018, July 2018) Removed from the lead per #47.

06. Do not include allegations of sexual misconduct in the lead section. (June 2016, Feb 2018)

07. Superseded by #35

Include "Many of his public statements were controversial or false." in the lead. (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

08. Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (Dec 2016)

09. Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2017) Include a link to an archive of Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2021)

10. Canceled

Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016) Canceled: Barron's BLP has existed since June 2019. (June 2024)

11. Superseded by #17

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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (RM Jan 2017, RM June 2019)

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 14 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". (Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (Nov 2019)

14. Omit mention of Trump's alleged bathmophobia/fear of slopes. (Feb 2017)

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

Supersedes #4. There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text (Diff 8 Jan 2017) has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense (Diff 11 Feb 2018). No new changes should be applied without debate. (RfC Feb 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017, Feb 2017) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

17. Superseded by #50

Supersedes #11. The lead paragraph is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (April 2017, RfC April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, July 2017, Dec 2018) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per Dec 2018 and MOS:JOBTITLES RfC Oct 2017. Wikilinks modified per April 2020. Wikilink modified again per July 2020. "45th" de-linked. (Jan 2021)

18. Superseded by #63

The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "Wharton School (BS Econ.)", does not mention Fordham University. (April 2017, April 2017, Aug 2020, Dec 2020)

19. Obsolete

Following deletion of Trump's official White House portrait for copyright reasons on 2 June 2017, infobox image was replaced by File:Donald Trump Pentagon 2017.jpg. (June 2017 for replacement, June 2017, declined REFUND on 11 June 2017) (replaced by White House official public-domain portrait according to #1 since 31 Oct 2017)

20. Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. (June 2017, May 2018) (Note: In February 2021, when he was no longer president, the verb tense was changed from "have sparked" to "sparked", without objection.)

21. Superseded by #39

Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him. (July 2017, Aug 2017) (superseded by #36 on 18 June 2019, then by #39 since 20 Aug 2019)

22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (RfC Aug 2017)

23. Superseded by #52

The lead includes the following sentence: Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. (Aug 2017, Nov 2017, Dec 2017, Jan 2018, Jan 2018) Wording updated (July 2018) and again (Sep 2018).

24. Superseded by #30

Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (Feb 2018) (superseded by #30 since 16 Aug 2018)

25. Do not add web archives to cited sources which are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)

26. Do not include opinions by Michael Hayden and Michael Morell that Trump is a "useful fool […] manipulated by Moscow" or an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation". (RfC April 2018)

27. State that Trump falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton started the Barack Obama birther rumors. (April 2018, June 2018)

28. Include, in the Wealth section, a sentence on Jonathan Greenberg's allegation that Trump deceived him in order to get on the Forbes 400 list. (June 2018, June 2018)

29. Include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article. (June 2018)

30. Supersedes #24. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." (RfC Sep 2018, Oct 2018, RfC May 2019)

31. Do not mention Trump's office space donation to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/Push Coalition in 1999. (Nov 2018)

32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. (RfC July 2018, Nov 2018)

33. Do not mention "birtherism" in the lead section. (RfC Nov 2018)

34. Refer to Ivana Zelníčková as a Czech model, with a link to Czechs (people), not Czechoslovakia (country). (Jan 2019)

35. Superseded by #49

Supersedes #7. Include in the lead: Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. (RfC Feb 2019)

36. Superseded by #39

Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him. (June 2019) (paragraph removed per RfC Aug 2019 yielding consensus #39)

37. Resolved: Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (June 2019)

38. Do not state in the lead that Trump is the wealthiest U.S. president ever. (RfC June 2019)

39. Supersedes #21 and #36. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)

40. Include, when discussing Trump's exercise or the lack thereof: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise. (RfC Aug 2019)

41. Omit book authorship (or lack thereof) from the lead section. (RfC Nov 2019)

42. House and Senate outcomes of the impeachment process are separated by a full stop. For example: He was impeached by the House on December 18, 2019, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted of both charges by the Senate on February 5, 2020. (Feb 2020)

43. The rules for edits to the lead are no different from those for edits below the lead. For edits that do not conflict with existing consensus: Prior consensus is NOT required. BOLD edits are allowed, subject to normal BRD process. The mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it. (March 2020)

44. The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results. (RfC May 2020)

45. Superseded by #48

There is no consensus to mention the COVID-19 pandemic in the lead section. (RfC May 2020, July 2020) (Superseded by RfC Aug 2020)

46. Use the caption "Official portrait, 2017" for the infobox image. (Aug 2020, Jan 2021)

47. Do not mention Trump's net worth or Forbes ranking (or equivalents from other publications) in the lead, nor in the infobox. (Sep 2020)

48. Supersedes #45. Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic should be mentioned in the lead section. There is no consensus on specific wording, but the status quo is Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. (Oct 2020, RfC Aug 2020)

49. Supersedes #35. Include in lead: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. (Dec 2020)

50. Supersedes #17. The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. (March 2021), amended (July 2021), inclusion of politician (RfC September 2021)

51. Include in the lead that many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as misogynistic. (Aug 2021 and Sep 2021)

52. Supersedes #23. The lead should contain a summary of Trump's actions on immigration, including the Muslim travel ban (cf. item 23), the wall, and the family separation policy. (September 2021)

53. The lead should mention that Trump promotes conspiracy theories. (October 2021)

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (October 2021)

55. Regarding Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, do not wiki-link "Trump's comments" in this manner. (RfC December 2021)

56. Retain the content that Trump never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan but add context. Current wording can be altered or contextualized; no consensus was achieved on alternate wordings. (RfC November 2021) Trump's expressions of doubt regarding the Russian Bounties Program should be included in some capacity, though there there is no consensus on a specific way to characterize these expressed doubts. (RfC March 2022)

57. Do not mention in the lead Gallup polling that states Trump's the only president to never reach 50% approval rating. (RfC January 2022)

58. Use inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations. (RfC May 2022, discussion on what to cite May 2022)

59. Do not label or categorize Trump as a far-right politician. (RfC August 2022)

60. Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023.

61. When a thread is started with a general assertion that the article is biased for or against Trump (i.e., without a specific, policy-based suggestion for a change to the article), it is to be handled as follows:

1. Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias.
2. Close the thread using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, referring to this consensus item.
3. Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
4. Manually archive the thread.

This does not apply to posts that are clearly in bad faith, which are to be removed on sight. (May 2023)

62. The article's description of the five people who died during and subsequent to the January 6 Capitol attack should avoid a) mentioning the causes of death and b) an explicit mention of the Capitol Police Officer who died. (RfC July 2023)

63. Supersedes #18. The alma mater field of the infobox reads: "University of Pennsylvania (BS)". (September 2023)

64. Omit the {{Very long}} tag. (January 2024)

65. Mention the Abraham Accords in the article; no consensus was achieved on specific wordings. (RfC February 2024)

66. Omit {{infobox criminal}}. (RfC June 2024)

67. The "Health habits" section includes: "Trump says he has never drunk alcohol, smoked cigarettes, or used drugs. He sleeps about four or five hours a night." (February 2021)

Business career

Per summary style (and the preceding section), I would like to propose summarising the business career section, with the Business career of Donald Trump article carrying the focus on that subject. We can move any content not already in that article, and leave behind a short summary. Thoughts? Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's not be in too much rush to trim essential content. Parts of his business career are essential to his life story. Let's not assume the article needs slash and burn simply because of a software issue. And there are plenty of unnecessary references and some inessential content that can be trimmed but not removed. SPECIFICO talk 22:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but not nearly as essential as his presidency, and can be adequately covered in a few paragraphs at most. This isn't simply because of the technical limits, although the software issue is actually something very serious. We were never supposed to get close to reaching this limit. This is not the only thing we should do, of course. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Most of them are already summaries of existing spinoff sub-articles, but it might be worth examining where some can be summarized even more. Compare the summaries here with the leads in the articles. The leads should be the best summary in existence, but here we can summarize even more, if necessary. Just make sure no content is actually lost from Wikipedia. It's better to move than delete. We don't write outlines here. We write more in-depth than anywhere else. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Trimming the business career section is less of priority than several other sections that I mentioned above. One could argue that what we currently have is a summary. - MrX 🖋 23:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I broadly agree that other sections are higher priority, but we cannot waste time figuring out what is the highest priority. If there is consensus for something low priority, that should be immediately actioned. I don't think we can call what we have there a summary when this article is about someone who is primarily a political figure. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Why is there still a two-paragraph section for Dismissal of James Comey? Top candidate for trim/removal, IMO. soibangla (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. There have been many other important events in his presidency. Comey's dismissal has almost been forgotten under the mountain of other scandals/controversies. This event is no more controversial than the many others that have occurred. Mgasparin (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I concur. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Not so fast. The entire section should not be removed. This was one of Trump's early major scandals. The material can be trimmed to a couple of sentence. Please propose something here before taking an axe to the article. - MrX 🖋 01:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

How about two sentences in the special counsel investigation section? Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe. Could we see the sentences first? - MrX 🖋 02:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

"Let's not be in too much rush to trim essential content." ... The entire section should not be removed. This was one of Trump's early major scandals.

Nobody is talking about removing anything. We are talking about taking full advantage of WP:SS by moving much of the content to sub articles. In essence, we want to transition this article from being Trump's biography to the hub of Trump's biography. Nothing would be lost, in fact, forking the content in this way will mostly likely allow even more detail than has ever been possible before. It is no small undertaking, but it surely must begin. That is why I also support Onetwothreeip's proposal, which echos the one I made in #Media career. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion. You started a discussion about " summarising the business career section". Someone change the discussion to the Comey dismissal and someone else removed the entire section. That's what I was referring to. In other words, somebody was talking about removing something. - MrX 🖋 15:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not confused. You are. I didn't start this discussion. I did the one about the media career above. I'll support ANY effort to reduce the amount of content (and thus, citations) by taking better advantage of WP:SS. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

This article must remain Trump's biography seen as best we can guess from a future perspective. This article must not be recast into a table of contents with links to subject-specific articles most users will never click and that they wouldn't even be able to evaluate for significance. The deep citations beyond what's needed for verification can be moved to a supplementary page of additional sources and reading. Moreover, if a software constraint is getting in the way of proper and valid content, then change the constraint, not the valid content. I've done little trims of trivia, off-topic aside comments, and redundant sources. These appear to have been uncontroversial. Trimming an entire section on one of the most noteworthy events of Trump's life -- firing Comey, with the mounting paranoia and erratic behavior that followed, is against our purpose here. SPECIFICO talk 16:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• OPPOSE - as 50+ years and a major focus of his life and fame, it deserves major BLP presence and not elimination. It already is largely summary with side articles anyway. Also, this is too vague and unspecific, it needs to offer some lower and actionable specific edit(s) that maybe would be supportable. I would for example support moving the Conflicts of Interest subsection to the Presidency article as it seems misplaced here anyway. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Everything is major, Mark. That's why we are in this position in the first place. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support I have been proposing this for years, as an alternative to the people who want to nuke the "presidency" material. The alternate article already exists, it will only be necessary to strip out the duplicative material and leave a paragraph or two. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Oops, I misread the proposal. Are we proposing to start a whole new article, "Business career of Donald Trump"? Why in the world? We already have "The Trump Organization" as a perfect place for all of this material. Take the unnecessary new article and merge it with the Trump Organization. In fact I will file a Merger proposal as soon as this discussion is closed. But in the meantime, strip down most of the "business" stuff in this article; it can all go in the existing/merged "Trump Organization" article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelanieN (talk • contribs) 20:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Business career of Donald Trump was created in November 2016. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Just remove excess citations

If the problem is cite template size, just remove redundant citations beyond what verifies article text. We could separately compile them, because they contain useful additional information and depth and could be published in some other form or their own further reading page. Removing article content on something like the Comey firing, which precipitated the Mueller investigation and all its ramifications is nuts. SPECIFICO talk 03:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

If cites are a big problem, strip them out of the article, and create a different page for cites.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

If this is a bad idea, why?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Not that new ideas are necessarily bad, but maybe the idea is never proposed because it violates verifiability and the very reason for having citations. Readers must be able to immediately access the exact cite connected to the exact words, phrases, or sentences. All works with citations, such as scientific literature, does it that way. It is an absolute requirement. That cannot be done if they are located elsewhere, unless there is some new technical solution to make that possible, and I'm not excluding that possibility. Now that would be a new way of thinking that would be cool. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, you can't do that if the source is a book.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

? We're talking about articles here, not books. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

No, we are talking about sources. A source like a book or an article behind a paywall is not necessarily something a reader can "immediately access". See WP:SOURCEACCESS.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

In theory, Wikipedia could have a central repository of citations to be referenced inline by articles. The inline referencing part would likely still involve templates, but those templates would be far shorter so post-expand include size would no longer be an issue. While in college, Trump obtained four student draft deferments.<ref>{{excite|1489904}}</ref> In addition, accuracy and professionalism would increase dramatically: Since each citation would only have to be coded once, regardless of how many times it's used site-wide, it would be more worth the time required to make it complete, correct, and clean. But this would be a huge change involving a massive amount of work and a lot of editor re-training – and long-term thinking isn't really a thing at Wikipedia – so it would be a hard sell. If anybody cared to pursue such a thing, the venue would be WP:VPI. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

That possibility does sound intriguing. It's worth pursuing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Then feel free to pursue it. Even if such a facility were accepted, Trump would likely be out of office (and/or dead) by the time it was ready for use, so it wouldn't offer much solution to the more immediate issues at this article. I was thinking big picture, out of venue. I can't think of any way to externalize inline citations that we could do locally – and citations do need to be inline. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

identifying and removing political appointees and career officials

is not POV at all and I included three refs to show it's DUE because of extensive coverage of this major development in which the president seeks to surround himself with loyalists in the aftermath of his impeachment because he and many of his supporters assert he has been betrayed. The stated reasons for this reversion are thoroughly specious constituting a continuing pattern by the reverting editor. soibangla (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=942183268&oldid=942178891

The tone of the writing clearly had a negative view of Trump's actions, as does the term "loyalists". Just because something can be cited with three sources, does not automatically make the content due in that particular section and in this particular article. The granular detail of Trump removing certain officials is not a top-level event due in a biography article. The extent of officials being dismissed and forced to resign can certainly be mentioned in the article as a general theme, but this proposal is far too specific to minor recent events to be included in this article and that section. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The tone of the writing clearly had a negative view of Trump's actions I honestly don't know how else to respond other than: BWAHAHA! soibangla (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

This material seems entirely appropriate to me, and the term "loyalist" is nowhere in the text. It's about as close to bare facts as I can imagine, and it's well sourced. - MrX 🖋 16:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

This has received wide and detailed coverage in every mainstream RS I can think of. The narrative of the events and the context has been extensive and detailed, and there has been widespread analysis and commentary. I can't see any basis to question due weight for this brief mention. SPECIFICO talk 17:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. ‘Unnecessary addition better for sub articles but also POV and overciting’ seems about right. Fix POV by word choices of other sources such as BBC or Fox, and fix overciting by no more than two cites. Don’t WP:SOAPBOX. And I suggest it’s not BLP significant, so yes try it in a more appropriate article and don’t Xerox it all over. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The sentence should be restored.

President Donald Trump is tightening his grip on the intelligence community as part of a post-acquittal purge of career officials and political appointees deemed insufficiently loyal, and the abrupt firing of his last intel chief is only the tip of the iceberg, current and former intelligence officials say.

"It’s not a secret that we want people in positions that work with this president, not against him, and too often we have people in this government—I mean the federal government is massive, with millions of people—and there are a lot people out there taking action against this president and when we find them we will take appropriate action," Hogan Gidley said.

Trump's "Deep State" hit list soibangla (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Of course. Done. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Eh, I am of the opinion it is to much detail for this article. With how vague it is, the context required to have it is just a bit much for here. PackMecEng (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

We absolutely should not be reporting what "current and former intelligence officials" say as if this was fact. At most we could report what they say in that context, but this still would not be notable enough for this biography, and still dubiously relevant. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Comparative review: potential missing aspects of presidency in lead

I did a comparative review of how the intro to this article covers Trump's presidency versus how Presidency of Donald Trump does so. Here are my takeaways, reflecting mostly topics that get more WP:WEIGHT in one than the other (and incorporating a bit of my own knowledge of how both compare to the amount of media coverage the topics receive). I'm frankly too burnt out at this point to go through the inevitable battles that would have to be waged to implement any of the changes suggested here, but I hope some of these points may serve as inspiration for proposals for those of you with remaining energy.

1. Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel gets the same phrasing in both articles' leads, which translates to proportionally much less here (given that this article devotes only one paragraph to his presidency, rather than the entire five-paragraph intro at the presidency article). It's also received much less media attention than some other listed aspects, so overall, it may be a candidate for removal.
2. This article pretty much does not mention Trump's deregulation and hollowing out of the administrative state in the intro, whereas the presidency article has a few sentences on it and includes it as the first specific aspect listed.
3. In foreign policy, one area mentioned in the presidency intro but not here is the withdrawal of troops from Northern Syria. My intuition is that this issue has received at least as much media attention as the Jerusalem item.
4. The presidency intro devotes significant attention to immigration issues, including the shutdown caused by Trump's demand for federal funding of the border wall and the family separation policy, whereas this intro covers only the Muslim ban and nothing else. Given the massive media coverage of Trump's wall and other immigration issues, I could see some of the language from there being brought over here.
5. The Mueller Investigation and Impeachment Inquiry receive roughly proportional coverage, with both getting significant attention in their own paragraph (here) or paragraphs (in the presidency intro).

Cheers, Sdkb (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Jerusalem and also, remove North Korea (only restore North Korea if there is a significant success). Withdrawal of troops from northern Syria - yes, impactful, resulted in Kurds losing their territory and lives. Trump administration family separation policy and also Trump administration migrant detentions - yes. Proposing next, with a reduction of four words: starship.paint (talk) 10:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

During his presidency, Trump's strict immigration policies resulted in migrant detentions, family separations, and multiple versions of a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries. [middle part untouched] He imposed import tariffs triggering a trade war with China, and withdrew U.S. troops in northern Syria to avoid Turkey's offensive on American-allied Kurds.

I don't understand the obsession with removing North Korea. It takes up a small part of the article. No other sitting president has met the North Korean leader; Trump has met Kim three times. Trump's policy is a dramatic departure from previous presidents, and he has made it personal.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, it isn't biographically significant. Trump has achieved absolutely nothing of worth with North Korea. In fact, the only thing Trump achieved is to elevate the status of his adversary by meeting him as an equal. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Isn't elevating and empowering Kim rather significant? Obama told Trump Kim was his biggest concern. SPECIFICO talk 01:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. This is not a list of Trump's successes. We've had this argument several times. I don't understand the underlying logic. We don't say the impeachment process achieved nothing, so it should be cut. Trimming the article should not mean a complete obliteration of aspects of his life.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland:, this discussion is about the lede of the article. It is not about the body of the article. Did you misunderstand that? There is no proposal in this section to remove anything from the body. starship.paint (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I understand that; I just don't understand the motivation.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• The articles are different topics, different content, so different LEAD. This is BLP article, plus has different editors in play, so it logically would and *should* have differences in LEAD content. It should *not* be a subset of Presidency article nor should the Presidency article be an expansion of his bio. It should be a LEAD of this article and ignore what the Presidency article did. That said, I am generally favoring shortening the lead by just name the topics and leave details for the body

- If you wanted to shorten the too-detailed and outdated bit on ‘Muslim ban’ with ‘immigration issues’ that simply names ‘travel bans’ and skips court history sure. Can also name ‘border wall’, ‘ended DACA’ and ‘family separation’ with no detail in LEAD.

- Leave Korea and Jerusalem in as they are major points - the Democratic debate in South Carolina is even asking about them today.

- Deregulation as described here is featured so little in Presidency article that it shouldn’t be in either LEAD. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to add the border wall, with all the deception, and lack of progress, that has gone into it. A fence of bollards, rather than a wall, and the progress as of this month: WaPo Nearly all of the new fencing the Trump administration has built so far is considered “replacement” fencing, swapping out smaller, older vehicle barriers for a more elaborate — and costly — “border wall system.” starship.paint (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Preparing to spinoff the Political career section

Per this edit, you can see that I have already created a spinoff sub-article for that content at Donald Trump's political career.

All that's left to do is to delete the content from here and leave a short summary. The lead there can be improved, and some other work with references needs to be done. There are some redlinks.

Please say Yes or No below. If Yes, then we proceed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, depending on your definition of short summary. I'm thinking 3–4 decent-sized paragraphs, around 300 words, would be about right. As with the "Presidency" section, we should seriously consider transcluding the lead of the sub-article and writing that summary once instead of twice. Admittedly wrong venue, but I'd move that to Political career of Donald Trump as that's grammatically equivalent to Presidency of Donald Trump (not "Donald Trump's presidency"), Veracity of statements by Donald Trump (not "Veracity of Donald Trump's statements"), and so on. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see how the presidency doesn't fit into the political career...?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

You're right, strictly speaking. Not sure it's necessary and useful to speak that strictly at this juncture, as the issues are already pretty complex. That could be deferred to a future merge proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's how the summary should be written. The lead of the sub-article should be written first and then copied here. The presidency section here should be represented by a section in the sub-article, as that is obviously part of his political career. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Not copied here, but transcluded here, so this article will automatically pick up future updates to that lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Sort of - it's fine to have a child article if there is a lot of extra detail to add that doesn't fit here, but I oppose removing anything from this article. His political career is an important and defining part of his biography, and what's there now is proportionate and of the level required here. Also strongly oppose transcluding the lead of the child article as the equivalent section here. Leads, which are typically restricted to 3-4 paragraphs, are nowhere near the level of detail required in a dedicated body section of a parent article, which would typically have maybe 8-10 paragraphs.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  This is not the only article comprising Donald Trump's biography; it's only the top-level one. And we shouldn't be too concerned about what's typical, as Trump is anything but a typical U.S. president. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  Sure, but this is the principal biography article, and it must stand on its own and a reader should be able to read it from start to finish to understand the topic. If an article requires clicking through to child articles in order to find out vital information about the subject, then the parent article is poorly written. See Barack Obama for a reasonable example (and a featured article too) - there are lots of sub-articles, on his senate career and so on, but all the vitals are there. I've struck my suggestion not to reduce at all, because actually the section in this article could be reduced, but certainly not down to just 4 paragraphs. And no transclusions from other articles. Urggh. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  Disagree that it must stand on its own. Many of those sub-articles are sub-articles only for technical reasons involving size. If it weren't for those technical issues, Presidency of Donald Trump et al would be part of this article. Splitting them off for technical reasons didn't change their essential nature or purpose, and we should view a "Main article" link as we do an entry in the TOC – a link for jumping to the area of interest. If a reader wishes to be satisfied with the short summary here, that's their prerogative; there is no cogent reason to assume that won't be enough for them, or to say that some x amount of information is essential in this article. And again, Trump is not an Obama, or a Nixon, or a Hoover, so those comparisons are not going to be relevant. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  If "for technical reasons" it has become necessary to split the article due to size, then whichever way you cook it that means the article itself has become too long, not just technically, but for readers too. An article should generally take 30-40 minutes to read in its entirety. And yes, splitting sections that have too much detail into their own sub-articles is absolutely how to do that. But per the WP:Summary style guideline, the purpose of this operation is not to just maintain the too-long article in a fragmented state that readers are expected to click back and forth between to read the whole thing, but to provide extra info on aspects of one of the sections for readers who want to delve a bit deeper. And with all due respect, saying "Trump is not an Obama" is neither here not there. It doesn't alter the fundamental guidelines on how articles are structured. The question is, were this article to be brought up before WP:FAC (which, stability aside, there's no reason why it shouldn't be) would reviewers be able to read it through and see a complete topic in this article? A split which left only a rump section on Trump's political career would not achieve that. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  Aye, and what defines a complete topic? Even your level of detail would leave a ton unsaid, and your reasoning is that a ton is acceptable, even optimal, but 1.2 tons is too much. That's purely arbitrary. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, and I concur with 3-4 paras with absolutely minimal citations (if any). More than 4 paras would defeat the object of the exercise. I sort of agree that the article must "stand on its own" in that it needs to be a cohesive whole, but only in the same way as an abstract can "stand on its own" as a summary of a thesis. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I think the 3-4 paragraphs suggested should be the introduction of Political career of Donald Trump that is then transcluded here, as Mandruss has suggested. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. It has long been my practice to create a good lead and then use it as the summary. A properly written lead is the best summary, so it also makes a good summary in the mother article. I describe it here: How to create and manage a good lead section. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• No I agree with Amakuru. This article needs to give an overview of the entirety of Trump. Further, I'll note that, since the talk pf converting this to an index or table of contents directory, I and others have managed to trim a substantial amount of trivia, OR, repetition and other inessentials, while still keeping the integrity of a standalone article. Our readers don't care about an arbitrary software constraint. There are numerous other solutions. Move the citations, have Trump part one/Trump part two, and many others. Readers are not going to navigate back and forth to dozens of wikilinks. Even experienced editors aren't doing that, as evidenced by inconsistencies between this article and the sub-topics, etc. SPECIFICO talk 14:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC) @Amakuru:
• Let's see the short summary first - I'm sorry, but given some of the excisions in the past, I no longer write blank checks. - MrX 🖋 14:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Writing an overly condensed summary is going to be even harder than writing the longer content proposed for the move. I agree with MrX any such reversal of the past several years work will need consensus here if it's ever to be implemented. And in my opinion, such a move would end up weakening both articles. Context matters. It's impossible to understand his political career apart from lifelong themes and life choices in his biography. SPECIFICO talk 14:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Nothing will be lost, but we cannot keep trying to shoehorn everything into one article. It's unsustainable madness. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Context will be lost. Readers who don't navigate a dozen links will lose information. Much will be lost. SPECIFICO talk 14:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. This is a biography, not an exposé. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Exposé? Please explain the connection? SPECIFICO talk 15:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Let me do you the courtesy of being blunt, if you and my fellow editors will indulge me. It is my opinion that some editors, on "both sides" (whatever that means), are keen to make sure certain facts are in this top level article, even if many would regard said fact to be excessive detail. Because of the necessary "horse trading" that takes place, each new fact often requires a "counter fact" (if that is a thing) to maintain the balance. This is not always true, of course, but it is human nature to seek that balance. The result is that the article grows quickly. This wasn't a problem early on, but now we have reached a level where the Wikipedia technical limits are a factor and adding new things necessitates removing things - a painful experience for all concerned. I favor making full use of sub articles to make sure each thing is given its proper due, but that doesn't sit well with the editors keen to see everything in the top-level article. I used the term "exposé" because sometimes it feels as if people are trying to weave the kind of narrative you might see in an investigative journalism piece. But that is not what this article is for. We are only supposed to be summarizing the work of journalists, not emulating them. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

While you and others have been pulling your hair about a temporary software constraint, you surely have noticed that I and a few others have trimmed a large amount of insignificant detail that somehow eluded normal editing process. As to the straw man, "see everything in the top-level article" -- it's not helpful because it's not specific enough to lead to operational editing decisions. More importantly it disappoints me to see you characterize the motivations or sit-welling of other editors, especially where we have made objective arguments against converting this page to an index to the Trump sub-articles. Finally, thanks for explaining the "exposé" thing. I don't see much of that, but I'm not all that active here. We are going to have to reach consensus on this, and I don't think abstract and personalized discussion is going to advance the process. Maybe you could go back to 10 seconds before your exposé post and respond to the concerns I actually raised in my No? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey, you asked for an explanation. Sorry if you don't like it, but it is what it is. I remain firmly of the belief we need to embrace WP:SS and not pay it lip service. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I mostly agree with SPECIFICO in this instance. Of course something will be lost from this article if it's removed. Some of that may be fine, but some of it may not. I don't think its unreasonable to ask to see the summary before a substantial amount of content is actually removed. - MrX 🖋 16:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Jessey, I didn't say that I did not like it, your reply. I said that it was unresponsive and unintelligible. I'll now say the same about your follow-up. I doubt I'm the only one who will disregard your comment unless it is significantly more clear and to the point. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Absolutely oppose This has been proposed many times before, under "space" rationale, and has been shouted down every time. This article NEEDS to have a lot of information about his presidency, as all other articles about presidents do. If you are worried about size, trim something less important like Business career or Family. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• @MelanieN: I would argue we can keep "political career" and "presidency" separate, so that shouldn't be an issue. "Business career" and "Media career" have both got proposals above, and they are attracting opposition too. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• So it separates out just the "political career" stuff (leaving a few paragraphs as an absolutely necessary summary) while leaving the "presidency" stuff in? That seems like a weird way to handle a biography, and we absolutely haven't hacked any other president's biography to pieces like this. I really don't understand all the "we must split this article into 50 subarticles" hysteria here. Just trim out the excess detail and the excess references. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• I would support later separating out the presidency stuff as well. This mother article needs to be reduced to a collection of summaries. The worst thing to do is to actually lose any content or references through deletion. We should follow summary style, which is a method for dealing with either too much content or undue weight issues. It just doesn't have to all be in the same article. We should "move" content, rather than "delete" it. We should follow WP:Preserve and keep as much content as possible at Wikipedia. That honors RS and the good faith hard work of editors. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• What you are hearing from several of us is that we are opposed to that approach. This is not a "mother article" (🤔 or is it?) and it's not an index to other articles. It is a biography that should stand on its own. I don't care if it's 50MB in length if that's what it takes to cover the subject. Let WMF use the $100mm they're sitting on to fix this silly size limit problem. - MrX 🖋 21:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• @MrX: While in principle I would like to be able to edit without arbitrary technical limits, I don't see these limits changing this year, and the one affecting this article probably won't more than double in the next 5. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• A proposal to increase the limit would undoubtedly meet with a lot of pushback saying that no article needs to be that large. Until that passes and is implemented, let's work within the current reality. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason why this this couldn't be a potential solution. - MrX 🖋 01:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Fine, then go to WP:VPR and post the proposal; we're not going to pass that here. Until the proposal passes and is implemented, let's work within the current reality. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• It is a biography that should stand on its own and it can stand on its own with less detail. As I've said elsewhere, there is nothing inherently correct about the current level of detail, and that's an illusory concept. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• I know. I wasn't suggesting that the article has the right level of detail now. It varies from section to section. - MrX 🖋 01:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree with MrX. This is not a “mother article,” or an index with most of the content being scattered among sub-articles. That approach is a non-starter. This is a biography and it needs to stand on its own. Even when we make sub-articles on a particular area, enough of that area needs to be retained here to make a coherent narrative and biography. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• No - Let's see the short summary first. No to transclusion, and frankly the notion that suitable bio content of 5+ pages can be done in 300 words seems a pipe dream. I don’t see how the first parts can be trimmed much, nor how the rest of article narrative can hold up if one cuts out the 2016 election material. And the problem here as elsewhere *is* those 4 of the 5+ pages going overly long in the BLP about non-BLP politics. I can imagine the 2016 campaign being a spin-off article and here being only one screen instead of 4...because other Presidents articles could... . except it’s already SIX spinoffs and still people making it 4 pages of similar content here. I just don’t see cutting these 4 pages to 150 words as likely to find acceptance, but will be happy to see it tried. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Markbassett: Why are you opposed to using transclusions? Transcluding the introductory paragraphs of a sub article to create a summary in the main article is surely a perfect solution, is it not? Why reinvent the wheel by having two different summaries? Is there some technical objection I am not aware of? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Count me as strongly opposed to transcluding prose. It creates a maintenance issue because changes to the transclusion source articles will not appear on a watchlist for this article. This has been tried in the past on this article and rejected. - MrX 🖋 15:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The watchlist argument fails on the basis that it is trivial to add the sub articles to your watchlist. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Trivial to add perhaps, but exhausting to monitor. - MrX 🖋 16:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that transclusion is a bad idea - because then changes will happen to this article that don't alert watchers of this article. It's not reasonable to expect us all to watch 40 or 50 articles just to keep up with this one subject. Just as it's not reasonable to assume that readers will accept this page as a sort of outline or index to all the sub-pages, which they then have to go somewhere else to read. This article can and should have detail reduced, but it has to be a full biography. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Just to summarize the current state of this discussion - before anyone starts implementing the various suggestions here. My tally:

• Should we spin off “Political career” to the new article, deleting the content here and leaving a short summary? Three people say yes, three people say no, and two say they want to see the “short summary” first before making a decision.
• Should the short summary consist of, or include, a transclusion of the lead from the spinoff article? Two people say yes, three say no.
• Should this be basically a “mother article,” i.e., a collection of summaries with links to daughter articles? Or should this article stand on its own as a biography? Two people say mother article; five (or possibly six) say it should stand on its own. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

  Editorially, I would prefer that it stand on its own. Unfortunately, there is so much to Donald Trump that I'm not sure it can unless we adopt a completely different reference style that doesn't keep us bumping up against Wikipedia's technical limits. Given the choice between changing reference styles with a stand-alone biography and using the existing reference style but making this a "mother article," I will "hold my nose" and recommend keeping the existing reference style and making it a "mother article." Why? Because it will be easier to maintain. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

  There's so much to Trump? I doubt it. He's not Leonardo da Vinci. We don't need fanboy World Wrestling details and stuff, but our readers come to a bio page to read a succinct narrative of the subject's life. That shouldn't be a problem, and we've already made progress cutting the file size. Do you happen to have an update on the file size vs. its largest before the recent cuts? SPECIFICO talk 22:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

  It's not the "file size" per se, but the "Post‐expand include size" which is currently 2037691 out of the maximum 2097152 bytes. It was around 2060000 bytes a few days ago. You can check this size by viewing the page source and searching for "Post‐expand include size". davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

  PEIS exceeded the limit of 2,097,152 not long before 21 Feb 17:57 UTC, since that's what triggered this thread. PEIS as of this edit is 2,037,691, or ~97.2% of the limit. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

  I think this is the wrong way to frame the issue, and I'll wear some of the blame for that. It could stand on its own at a higher level of summary; I think that would be fine for a majority of readers, even preferable for many. It's not like the status quo article tells "the whole story"; it doesn't even come close, never has, and never could given the space constraint. So the question is where to draw the line between this article and the sub-articles, and it presents a false dichotomy to speak of "standing on its own" and "not standing on its own". ―Mandruss ☎ 00:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. His on-again, off-again presidential "aspirations," often/usually coinciding with the release of another book or the start of another Apprentice season, are as much part of his bio as the three wives or whether he's a billionaire. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The only problem is too many reference cites

Let's please solve the problem we face and not a different problem that does not exist. The problem is nearly 900 references cited, half of which are not needed to verify the article content. The "excess" references can be put in a separate supplemental reading page, they could be apportioned to the narrower subject-specific articles, or they could be discarded. There's no need to port text just to get rid of the excess citation templates that will then -- wait for it -- needlessly burden the subsidiary articles. SPECIFICO talk 17:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree, and we should just all start doing it. It doesn't require any discussion. I just removed six excess references from the "early life" section; it didn't take long and it removed 1200 characters. Maybe if we all did this, a paragraph at a time, through the whole article, it might calm this frantic campaign to split the article into forty or fifty subarticles. That's no way to treat a biography. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

P.S. In fact I dare everybody to take this on. And report progress in this section. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Family section. Another five duplicative references, another 1100 bytes. We really don't need two or three references to document every fact in his life. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

For noncontroversial facts we don't. For controversial or BLP-sensitive matters, we need several. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

That's true. You can't just blindly remove a reference, you have to actually look at the references to see if each contains unique information. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is one of the worst ideas ever. References are the basis of all our content, and only the one who added the reference really knows which word(s), phrases, sentences, or paragraphs require that ref, so when someone else comes along and removes two out of three references, the result can easily be a loss of the necessary references. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Might suffice if he loses in November, otherwise completely unsustainable. We cannot maintain the current number of citations for five more years of adding things to this article that are really important for readers to know without clicking a "Main article" hatnote link, such as the eight world leaders who Trump cited as good leaders (what bio would be complete without that??). Perhaps we should defer these discussions until 4 November, and otherwise limp along by removing a few cites each time we exceed the limit. I could live with that. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think is a good idea to put things off to November.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• OK, reduced Art of the Deal same cite on each of three lines to just once at end. Only saved 58 bytes though. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Markbassett: Apparently some still are confused about what the technical limit is about. It is not about file size, which is what you reduced by 58 bytes. Your edit removed no citation templates, so it had no effect on post-expand include size, which is what the technical limit is about. A <ref name=.../> tag is not a citation template, as you can see by the absence of {{cite web/news...}}. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• OK, reduced Acting repeated use of cites and three cites as about his pension down to one -- and also fixed the misquote of dollar figure and years. 673 bytes. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• And reduced Talk Show cites - two lines had three cites each, but the lines were more than covered by two. 692 bytes Markbassett (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Good work, Mark, keep it up. As I understand it, the problem everybody is worried about is not actually the total size of the article; it is the number of templates, which in this article is primarily the {{cite news}} or similar template used to cite references. So when you remove excess references, you are accomplishing more than just the number of bytes; you are removing templates. I knocked out a few more yesterday and will continue to work on it. Something I recommend: I'm making a note of exactly when I end a series of removals, so that I can wait 24 hours before starting on another bunch. I don't want to accidentally violate 1RR. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

[User:MelanieN]] - sure thing or reducing excess cite, a good cleanup step. Though I still think if we could do some eliminating in the non-BLP political lines (and hence their cites) it would also be better. Something like moving the whole Conflicts of Interest section over to the Presidency article withOUT trying to have a summary here, and a more stringent look at the lesser points in the Politics pages - especially for any that are already at the subtopic article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC),

• Reduced cites diff remove two cites not needed and not that relevant to the line. 453 bytes. The first cite names the other countries; the cite specific to one a crown prince and the cite specific to UAE donations are going down to specific items within the report, not speaking much to 'there are several countries'. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 09:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
• Reduced cites in Special Counsel Investigation diff. 1,052 bytes. Notice this one removed text so may be contentious.. The first quote was from the Mueller Report Vol I as cited by named ref; but then remove the line ending as the second quote "welcomed and encouraged" foreign interference. Seems not actually in the report or the other cites. And remove three cites as not needed or that related - Alba is re 2020 election, From seems an opinion piece, and the NBC piece seems a bit related but not much. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 09:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

"Welcomed and encouraged" comes from Page 5 of the Mueller Report (bold is mine):

The presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump (“Trump Campaign” or “Campaign”) showed interest in WikiLeaks’s releases of documents and welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton. Beginning in June 2016, ...REDACTED... forecast to senior Campaign officials that WikiLeaks would release information damaging to candidate Clinton. WikiLeaks’s first release came in July 2016. Around the same time, candidate Trump announced that he hoped Russia would recover emails described as missing from a private server used by Clinton when she was Secretary of State.

"Welcomed" is in the report specifically. "Encouraged" is a word Mueller agreed to in his testimony to the House committee when referring to Trump's call for Russia to hack Clinton's emails. So a partial restoration of what you removed may be appropriate, although I see no need to had the cites back since this comes directly from the report. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I saw welcomed but article presenting an enquoted "welcomed and encouraged" as if a quote of the Mueller report seems false presentation. It doesn't even seem a valid paraphrase of the actual line. I see the text was reinstated anyway. Since this isn't about citing, I will break into a new thread. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal on trimming

It's obvious we can't agree on what's important. There are so many reliable sources with so many facts about Trump, from his bone spurs to his orange mane. So why not select 5-10 highly reliable sources which give a brief biography of Trump? Cross-reference them to the article. If the article contains information not in these sources, delete that information.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

That's thinking outside the box. Not allowed at this article. Others will be along to explain to you how it violates one or more inviolable Wikipedia principles. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Which ones???--Jack Upland (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Brief biographical sources are useful, but Wikipedia biographies have little in common with what is normally thought of by "biography". We are supposed to use all available RS, including what was written today and yesterday, thus our biographies contain all tangentially related content about Trump that fulfills our assigned goal of documenting the "sum total of human knowledge" about Trump. All of that is eligible for his biography.

Due to our ability to spinoff excess content that creates an undue weight situation here, we can move the bulk of such content and then go into extremely deep detail on every aspect of his life in those spinoff articles.

So forget about normal biographies and let what RS say dictate what we include. That is one explanation for why articles on the same types of subjects differ so much and should not be compared and forced into the same "ideal format" template for an article. They should be allowed to grow according to how RS cover the subject. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

See WP:ONUS.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Directionally, it's a fair idea, but I don't think it is practical. Someday, there will probably be a few good biographies written about Trump, but for now the best we can do is document his life as it unfolds. - MrX 🖋 20:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I mean something like this.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Our article is better. For all we know they cribbed from us. SPECIFICO talk 22:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Or at least as good. Also, I don't see any evidence that the Britannica article is based on 5-10 highly reliable sources, or any sources for that matter. - MrX 🖋 15:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

How would that work? An encyclopedia cribbing from another encyclopedia? Maybe we should reduce our Donald Trump article to two sentences: "We give up. See Encyclopedia Britannica." Kidding aside, I can just imagine the discussions on whether the 5–10 reliable sources are, in fact, more reliable than the information WP editors gleaned from RS. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I think we should include every single detail about Trump in this article, starting at the Big Bang and ending at the heat death of the universe, because he is the embodiment of entropy. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

We'll have to wait for the people who run Wikipedia to raise the limits affecting this article to infinity and beyond first. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Jack Upland is right per Tertiary sources: "Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight...." TFD (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

1RR violations?

PackMecEng: You "seem to be" accusing me of violating 1RR on the Donald Trump page. How am I supposed to respond to a vague accusation like that? Please specify the "partial reverts" that you think are in violation of the policy or delete your message from my Talk page. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Fine here and here are both partial reverts. The first being a violation of BRD as well. I had no plans of pursuing it but since you asked. PackMecEng (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The second one is a revert, and I explained my reason for it. The first one I don't consider to be a revert, partial or otherwise (haven't found any mention of "partial revert" in WP Help just saw it in 24-hr BRD cycle). I was editing based on the sources you had provided, and I explained what I was doing and why. I may be wrong, so maybe the admins keeping an eye out for restriction violations would like to weigh in on this. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

You removed material here, I reverted and added sources here, and you removed most of it again here. Again it was a reminder to watch out on a very active DS topic, so no idea why you brought your 1RR and BRD violations to the talk page here. Finally explaining why you make multiple reverts on a 1RR page is not an exemption. PackMecEng (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

For the sake of a complete picture, this is the entire sequence of edits to the paragraph: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. BTW, I just noticed that the sentence I initially removed and you reinserted was copied word-for-word from one of the two additional sources you added. That's the CNN source I removed as part of what I consider to be normal editing (9) (in my edit summary I wrote that I was removing "two others that missed the three separate ones in 1992" but I actually removed only the one). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

None of that really matters for 1RR. I was just leaving a nice little note that you need to be more careful. So yeah, do that. PackMecEng (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

My bad, didn't get the nice part of You seem to be making a lot of partial reverts on a 1RR article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

For future reference, this type of discussion might be better had on a user talk page. The purpose of this page is to discuss article improvements and content, not editor behaviour. Mgasparin (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

WWE

Is any of this biographically significant? I have a proud track record of avoiding all wrestling, so I'm not qualified to know if these edits should be rolled back per WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Previous discussions said they're not significant enough for this article (there are two in Archive 108 (no idea how to cite archived discussions), there may be others), and some of the material that was added today (hair match, Lashley/Umaga match etc.) was removed as trivial. Attendance at Wrestlemania XX and being interviewed by Jesse Ventura – that's new and seems even more trivial, and I have a proud track record of not avoiding all wrestling. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

None of this seems significant to the arc of Trump's life story. Maybe in some other article, but not this one. SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

WrestleMania 23 was the biggest cashgrab in pro wrestling's 120-year history, at the time. Attendance-wise, it still might be Trump's hugest offline crowd. The bare bones (participants, stip, result) are rightly noted in McMahon, Lashley, Umaga and Austin's biographies. Everyone on the show's article notes how they fared. Trump's performance is the only one that received significant coverage from reliable mainstream sources over the years, demonstrating a lasting effect. Probably even some scholarly articles, but certainly Fox, CNN and BBC. Seems extremely odd to single the guy in the middle of the marquee out as the one whose bio is irrelevant to these very brief, very important and very standard facts. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The Ventura interview is relatively meh. In defense of a one-sentence note, I'll only say it actually happened. There are many paragraphs elsewhere about things that were merely supposed (by some) to happen, if space is legit running out (and too many citations to all opinions). InedibleHulk (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I've partially restored some of the material that got taken out by another editor, and I've rearranged the refs a bit to reduce the number of times they are called. (diff) -- Scjessey (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Do we have consensus that any WWE stuff belongs in the article (beyond enough words for a link to the WWE page? I doubt it. SPECIFICO talk 21:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, I have no interest or knowledge of wrestling. Since there is some dispute over what to include, I have essentially reverted it back to the stable version it was before (apart from a small cite reduction). As a person with no interest in wrestling whatsoever, I couldn't care less if the section was removed completely; however, I am given to understand from previous discussion that some people think it is an important part of Trump's biography. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Right, but that's exactly the point. I have no interest in horse kidneys, but that doesn't mean I am agnostic if somebody claims they belong in this article. It's unimportant to his bio and we have other articles that cover it in the context of its importance to their subjects. SPECIFICO talk 14:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no interest in wrestling, but it was a major part of his life, and so belongs in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I've had my interest in wrestling compared to a lot of niche tastes over the decades since it's gone objectively mainstream. Circuses, gay porn, cockfights, even local politics. But horse kidneys are a new low. I've owned horses and never seen even one kidney, much less read about how (or if) they actually work. But looking back, it seems we were all in Archive 108, so we all could have read the twelve stories about how heels work that Starship.pain(t) carefully illustrated for you willfully ignorant noobs (no offense, you just are).

Literally everything Trump has done to keep his "unpresidential" heat for the last four years is directly parallel to how men like Bobby Heenan, Freddie Blassie and Vince McMahon won the bona fide wrestling game of popularity, engagement and mind control. That's how you win elections, while genuinely not caring about advertising budgets, opinion polls, foreign opinion, marginalized demographics, facts or spelling. Readers upset with how Trump "stole it" last time (a fair few, I gather) should know more about how he stole the 2007 show as a babyface, not less. If they bother to pay attention, they might actually learn something about getting over in 2020, instead of trusting CNN's bland and robotic "safe choice" again. At the very least, they might be pleasantly surprised to see Trump in cahoots with a strong black American role model who isn't Derrick Lewis. Sharing reliably-sourced reaction from "The Black Beast" might be "too real" just yet. But a decent short overview of any WWE Hall of Famer's "fake and gay" career isn't "radical" or "problematic", by any stretch of the imagination.

You're just afraid to "legitimize" the idea that millions of registered voters and foreign agents still watch or remember WWF/WWE weekly since Reagan quit, I think. I'm afraid to admit other people watch hours of Senate testimony, and hours more still watching reaction vids to that testimony, then days here arguing with Congressional fanboys about how to best reflect the reflection (and how it might reflect on them in ten hypothetical years). But I let the bloated and controversial sections speak for themselves, don't delete what I fail to understand, simply skip it. I'm happier for it, too, I swear! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Fair point. I think there's a lot of Trump's past in his current presidency.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

"Welcomed and encouraged" fails V

User:Scjessey - starting a TALK thread on this one, we seem at BRD time to open up a discussion on it.

While cleaning out excess cites, I came to a line in Special Counsel Investigation with four cites on it.

The report states that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion", and it details how Trump and his campaign "welcomed and encouraged" foreign interference believing they would politically benefit.[724][742][743][744]

The problem is that Mueller did not literally say "welcomed and encouraged", so the article enquoting is a false presentation. There is no "encouraged" about the interference and for the only line in Mueller report (pg 5) which says "welcomed" this text seems an invalid paraphrase. None of the cites actually say 'welcomed and encouraged' - specifically it doesn't say encouraged and it says only Trump campaign not Trump - or anything really close -- so I removed the back half of the line as lacking V.

• 724 is the Mueller report. There is a "welcome" on Page 5, the second page of the Executive summary: The presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump (“Trump Campaign” or “Campaign”) showed interest in WikiLeaks’s releases of documents and welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton.
• 742 is a David Frum May 2019 piece on theatlantic.com of his opinions what the report said. The body includes The Trump campaign “expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts,” and it “welcomed” this help.
• 743 is a Jane Timm April 18, 2019 piece on the report, and it's subtitle said Trump's campaign "expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts," Mueller's report said.
• 744 is a Monica Alba piece April 24, 2019, on the 2020 election and that the re-election campaign has not publicly stated that it will not use hacked materials to it's advantage. Down in the body is a line the Trump team expected to "benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts."

So - the enquoting of "welcomed and encouraged" is factually false, and the line in the article is a bad paraphrase of Mueller or any of the cites then present.

I did find use of the phrase in a WP:BIASED source about Muellers testiomny, a Congresswoman McCollum (DFL-Minn) press release here “Mr. Mueller’s testimony today reaffirmed that Russia attacked our democracy in the 2016 election to solely benefit Donald Trump. The Trump campaign welcomed and encouraged the interference and lied about it to cover it up. But as a partisan source that would have to be attributed and the PR just doesn't seem itself WP:WEIGHT enough to have in article.

So obviously I believe the best option was to just drop the end bit. Whether they liked it or not simply isn't a major part of the Mueller report. The first volume is on the Russian activities, and the second volume is on Trump hindering the investigation. Alternatively, the phrase could be edited to replace the part failing V with something that is the actual text such as Trump's campaign "expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts" or Trump's campaign "welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton".

RSVP and open to input from others. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Markbassett, OK, so "welcomed" and "encouraged" is fine. Or remove the quotes, they are superfluous anyway. Just fix it. Guy (help!) 21:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Welcomed is well sourced. The exact word encouraged I don’t see. But, we don’t need to use exact words if unquoted. Publicly announcing that he hoped Russia would recover emails described as missing from a private server sounds like encouragement to me. Welcomed and encouraged with no quotes works for me. O3000 (talk) 21:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

"Invited" and "requested" would also be accurate. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Solicited and welcomed? SPECIFICO talk 02:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Welcomed and encouraged without the quotes works for me, too. A quick search for each verb produced a long list of RS using welcomed and four using encouraged ([7], [8], [9], [10]). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

"Welcomed and encouraged" may have originated from the hearings. For example, this exchange between Robert Mueller and Adam Schiff:

SCHIFF: Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian interference?
MUELLER: Yes.
SCHIFF: And then Trump and his campaign lied about it to cover it up?
MUELLER: Yes.

On that basis, it would seem that "welcomed and encouraged" is fine, with or without the quotes. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Mueller also stated he was "not familiar" with Fusion GPS or the Steele dossier, didn't know who Corey Lewandowski is - despite being mentioned repeatedly in the report that he supposedly wrote, and gave contradicting reasons why he didn't indict Trump, among other various inconsistencies and memory lapses. There are assuredly more reliable and factual sources than that disastrous hearing. Architeuthidæ (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Mueller said that Glenn Simpson was outside his purview, not that he didn’t know what Fusion GPS and the Steele dossier were. Looked through the testimony and can’t find any indication he didn’t know who Lewandowski was, and there were multiple reasons why he didn’t indict. Keep in mind that this is a WP:BLP. O3000 (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Mueller: "Not Familiar" With Fusion GPS, "Outside My Purview" It's both. After being asked about Fusion GPS, Mueller replied "I--I'm not familiar with that. I--could you--". After a Republican congressman explained to Mueller the significance of Fusion GPS, and brought up Glenn Simpson, then he said that it was "outside my purview." I admire your willingness to read through that testimony, but the Lewandowski tidbit is covered in reliable sources so we don't have to do that [11]. Yes, he gave different and contradicting reasons why he didn't indict. In any case, I think we can all agree that the Mueller testimony isn't reliable. We should find some reliable sources for this "welcomed and encouraged" wording. Architeuthidæ (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Read the transcript. He did not say that he was not familiar with GPS Fusion or the Steele dossier. And no, we do not all agree his testimony isn't reliable. Again, this is a BLP. We must be careful not to make negative statements about living persons without reliable sources. RS do not say what you are claiming. O3000 (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I watched the hearing live last year. Here on Wikipedia, we need to use reliable sources rather than our personal opinions and takeaways from various pdfs on the Internet. Nobody said anything negative about living persons, so we don't need to worry about that. Reliable sources say Mueller was not familiar with Fusion GPS, per my link above. You're getting bogged down in the minutiae. You can rely on the testimony, but here, we need reliable sources for the "welcomed and encouraged" wording. Once someone finds some, we can take a look at it and go from there. Architeuthidæ (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying that Mueller is dead? Or are you saying that all your comments about him are not negative. We take BLP seriously here. And I am not bogged down. We have already discussed welcomed and encouraged and it appears most of us are OK with this. O3000 (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't get smart with me, please. Obviously Mueller is still alive. If you want to perceive facts such as "Mueller said he was 'not familiar' with Fusion GPS" as negative, that's your prerogative, but we need to discuss facts. If you think you have a legitimate BLP grievance, you are free to run it up the chain and see if it sticks. If the majority are okay with relying on Mueller's testimony, that's fine by me. Just adding my two cents here on the issue. Architeuthidæ (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

We also deprecate obstinate insistence from Single Purpose Accounts. O3000 is correct. SPECIFICO talk 21:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. We can safely ignore the opinion of any editor who says "Mueller's testimony isn't reliable." That's just absolutely absurd on many levels. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure, we can go down the personal attack route - I could reply and say that we should ignore opinions about Trump from virulently anti-Trump editors on talk pages related to Trump. But I won't do that. We should just focus on providing reliable sources for improving the article, and make sure we play the ball rather than the man. Editors are free to rely on Bob Mueller and buy his Saint Bob Mueller Prayer Candles. Just as long as we stick with reliable sources, we'll all be on the same page. Architeuthidæ (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Architeuthidæ, it's not a personal attack. Rejection of Mueller comes solely from motivated reasoning and relies on the assumption that facts cease to be facts when they are politically inconvenient. Guy (help!) 23:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

it's not a personal attack. In my opinion Architeuthidæ is both right and wrong. It was not a personal attack by en-wiki's narrow definition (much of it necessarily unwritten), which is effectively "If it won't get you sanctioned for NPA violation, it isn't personal attack." Scjessey didn't say "You are an insufferable fool" or something. My advice to editors is to be very conservative in their use of the words "personal attack", because over-assertion enables responses like it's not a personal attack. But we should play the ball not the man as Architeuthidæ says, and I suspect Scjessey knows that. He has no doubt seen "Discuss content, not editors" many times, and he probably has said it himself a few times. Apologies for the diversion. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

We do stick with reliable sources, which say Trump "welcomed" and "encouraged" Russia to help his election. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

IMO "welcomed and encouraged" is factual and sourced, and if we want a direct quote, the Mueller testimony works. Others here have suggested "solicited" or "invited" which are also factual; Trump literally requested Russian interference on live television. I prefer Mueller's own words, but am open to other wording. But we cannot remove the conclusion that Trump - not just his campaign, but Trump himself - welcomed and encouraged Russia to help him in the election. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

"Welcomed and encouraged" without quotes is a problem because it is a direct lift from the hearing, not the report itself, and does not attribute the phrase. In fact, the phrase originates from a question at the hearing, not the testimony by Mueller (though he answered affirmatively). [12] Sourcing policy probably requires a better indication of where that phrase derives from. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• User:Objective3000 - The Trump remark about Clintons email seems to have some WEIGHT, I suggest you try an add to the Presidential campaign section. It does not belong to the section of the Mueller report. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• User:Scjessey and User:BullRangifer - No no no, it is ***not*** OK to just make stuff up or to present other events as a quote from the report. For the line in question starting "The report states" the article is presenting this as one of the exact quotes from the report, in the section about the report. There is no such phrase there. If you want to mention any of these non-report things above they need to go into a different location, be attributed to the person who is the source, and provide V. Plus be of enough WEIGHT to be DUE a mention here. It is apparent that the phrase is not going to get V or get a mod to something more accurate so I am going to again delete that part of the article line as lacking V (because it is false). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Don't worry. I think MelanieN summed it up best. BTW, you might want to follow policy and not just delete the content, but improve it per WP:Preserve. That's what we are supposed to do when possible. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
    • @Markbassett: You're wrong. "Welcomed and encouraged" is fully supported by reliable sources. Having it without the quotation marks addresses your concern. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Scjessey: It might be helpful if you offered a source to support your point, rather than simply telling another editor they are wrong. At the very least, this raises a legitimate question of what the proper attribution should be here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: I don't need to provide a source, because one was already provided by another editor (example). Trump literally asked Russia to hack Clinton's emails on live television, which was covered by every media outlet on the planet. We use the word "encouraged" in our text, but any synonym of the word (invited? begged?) would suffice. We don't need attribution because we are saying "welcomed and encouraged" in Wikipedia's voice, as part of our lead summary. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Scjessey: The question is whether "welcomed and encouraged" is properly attributed to the report, not whether it's the WP:TRUTH. I don't see that source supporting this attribution, and the press conference is not relevant to the issue of the report itself. I don't think that a phrase lifted from the hearings should be attributed to the report if it doesn't actually contain that language. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

We aren't saying that the report contains the specific phrase. We are saying that the phrase summarizes the findings of the report. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

But it's clearly implied by the use of the phrase in the current text. "Welcomed and encouraged" is lifted from the subsequent hearings, but the current text seems to suggest via an WP:INTEXT attribution that it's from the report. Since it's not, that's clearly a problem. There is a technical problem with how this phrase is currently presented and attributed. Borrowing something from the hearings and implying it's from the report might actually be WP:SYNTH. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Then fix the attribution. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

BullRangifer, Don't get aggressive with me for raising an issue. I don't necessarily know what the most agreeable wording is. There is currently a problem with what's presented. We have a possible discrepancy between what the nominal author of a report says, and what the report actually says, and we can't afford to be sloppy on this by treating both sources (the report itself and the author's later statements) as if they are one in the same, esp. since the phrase "welcomed and encouraged" didn't actually come from the author. I think the entire phrase should be scrapped in favor of whatever the report says. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal We leave the phrase "welcomed and encouraged," and include an explanatory note indicating the origin of the phrase, with a possible quote of the Mueller-Schiff exchange. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, no aggression intended, just suggested one way to fix the situation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure me diving in and implementing my idea of what's correct will have long-standing effect on this page. I raise it here because some kind of consensus would obviousy be best. I think an explanatory citation note will require little to no modification of the current text and provide the attribution that's needed, so I'd be curious how people feel about it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

That's a no on the citation note in the lead. It simply isn't needed. The explanation is in the body of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that "welcomed and encouraged" is a phrase directly lifted from the source. The attribution can't be in the body of the article, it needs to be in the same line as either an WP:INTEXT or a citation. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• User:Scjessey No, the line and section is about what is specifically in the report Volume I. I think we’re all clear that “welcomed and encouraged” is not literally in the report and not in the cites the editor had, and apparently not referring to the report. Someone just edited in a false quote there is all. It’s only in the scrutiny of cite reduction trying to see which could be removed yet support the line that fails V became apparent. Possibly ‘encourage’ is referring to the earlier campaign remarks about the 30,000 missing emails rather the report content. Possibly it is referring to the framing Schumer said in the later hearing rather than the report content. The point is, those would not belong in this line and should not be attributed to the report or Mueller. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• User:MrX - sigh. I see you have reinstated the “welcomed” phrase, but did not provide a support. No, it is not enough to simply remove the quotes, as this is not from the report nor the prior reviews of what the report said, and does not even seem to be about the report. Removing quotes just shifts it from false V to lacking V. Procedural notes

Please note WP:V lead “Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.” And in the BURDEN section “Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.”.

As the restorer, please provide such a source which is reviewing the report and says this is in there. *Not* just any cite with the phrase such as a cite that says it as a truth in general, or happened in 2016, or as a later remark by Schumer — but one that is reviewing the report and so meets V “The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article.”

Or move the phrase to the Presidential campaign section or later hearings section or something where it is supported. Or just follow the V instructions and delete it here as it was a bad quote. I will tag it as citation needed. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Phleeebpt. You made a bad edit and I fixed it by removing the quote marks, consistent with what several editors have said in this discussion. Scjessey quoted Mueller's testimony. MelanieN made a strong argument in support of the material. JzG advised that the problem is solved by removing quotes. Muboshgu cited two sources and Space4Time3Continuum2x cited four. You do realize that most of American heard Trump ask Russia for help, right? - MrX 🖋 12:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

It is amazing to me that a couple of editors think that by saying the same thing over and over again, it will change the facts. "Welcomed and encouraged" (without the quotes) is WELL SOURCED and the language is supported by a majority of editors here. It's time to move on. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Part of the problem seems like we're having two different conversations. No one is disputing that there is a source for the phrase "welcomed and encouraged." The issue that MB raised and that is valid is that this source is not the report itself, which is what the article text suggests. Yes, this is nitpicky, but for the lead of probably one of the most read articles on WP, I don't think that's inappropriate. This has nothing to do with the WP:TRUTH of whether this happened, this is a technical sourcing/attribution issue for language directly lifted from an external source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Scjessey Supported for elsewhere, but not for the place it is. Yes, it is amazing to see that you keep repeating ‘in the report’ is supported. Giving cites that support such will do, saying it is supported doesn’t provide V. BUT frankly this is just defending a *false quote* that was shockingly bad cite practice. Someone put it in although all four of the cites said no such thing, so they simply weren’t looking at the things they were citing. It seems just from other places, not in nor about the report, so does not fit here. “The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article.” Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

"Welcomed and encouraged" (without the quotes) IS NOT A QUOTE, Mark. It is OUR language that is supported by reliable sources, and it is a perfect summary of how the report characterizes the Trump campaign's position on foreign interference. What part of that don't you understand? Removing the quotes fixed it. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

FIXED. You see how easy it was, Mark? It took less fuss and edits than your "citation needed" tag. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• User:MrX - Citation still Needed. By removing the quotes you only ‘fixed’ it into unsupported. You still need to either remove it or meet BURDEN and provide a clear support. The two added do not do. The NYTimes.com cite has nothing relevant, it is about the hearing being disappointing, which has nothing close to mentioning welcoming or encouraging, even Schumer saying it. The abcnewsgo cite also will not do. It is at least about the report and substantial. In it Bruggeman clearly supports the same as the four other cites did - a quote “the Campaign expected to benefit electorally”. The closest otherwise is Bruggeman gives background mentioning “In July 2016, around the time Trump...” but there he says the Mueller finding is that the campaign was planning a press strategy for more Wikileaks. This would support ‘the report said they planned to benefit from Wikileaks’ but does not support ‘the report said they welcomed and encouraged Russian interference’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding U.S. to place of birth

I think we should add U.S. to his place of birth. Since there're some rules regarding presidents being natural born citizen, adding U.S. behind Queens, New York City will completely clarify to the reader that he was born in the United States. Additionally, every other president appears to have U.S. behind there name which would keep with the consistency of US president infoboxes. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• #Current consensus #2 specifically says "No state or country", so editors have already considered and rejected U.S. in this case.
• New York City is so universally known that Wikipedia generally doesn't (or shouldn't) even link it, per MOS:OVERLINK – and linking it would consume no additional space. (The link currently in the infobox is an anomaly; see Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 107#Amend consensus #2 for background.)
• Please link to the guideline that suggests that presidents' BLPs should be consistent on things like this. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Linking NYC

I recently linked the first instance of New York City in the lede. Spy-cicle reverted this, citing WP:OVERLINK. I hardly think it is overlinking to link the first time a term is used. Indeed, it is required to link the first uses of link-worthy terms. Ergo Sum 21:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Under WP:OVERLINK (for what generally should not be linked) it states: The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar. This generally includes major examples of: locations (e.g., Berlin; New York City, or just New York if the city context is already clear; London, if the context rules out London, Ontario; Southeast Asia). Most readers are familiar with well-known locations like New York City so it is redundant to link it. But even if a reader was not aware he/she could click on the Queens wikilink a few words prior.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

What Spy-cicle said. Observe OVERLINK or explain why this case should be an exception to it. Separately, any editor can seek to change it. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Inaccurate approval

The approval ratings section is outdated. It states that Trump's approval is the lowest in modern history. It should be noted that recently his approval ratings have matched that of Obama and other recent presidents Alec935 (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Not exactly. Trump's lowest = 35; Obama's lowest = 40. Trump's highest = 49 (there might have been one 50 recently). Obama's highest = 67. Trump's average = 40. Obama's average = 47.9. Per [chart]. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

However, I agree the section is outdated and also too much detail for a biography. I will try to trim it to the basics. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I did a complete rewrite to bring it up to date, use better references, and remove trivia. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

After false statements

After "Trump has made many false or misleading statements..." tone of most of the intro section turns extremely partisan left, (rant, rant rant... until it became impossible not to cite acquital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.103.223.213 (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. Please make substantive suggestions for article improvement, rather than just randomly claiming partisan editing. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Here comes our weekly complaint that the article is biased. What else is new? Mgasparin (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of nonchalantly noting that people persistently point out obvious bias, and summarily dismissing their concerns, we should work together to remove the bias and make the article neutral. Just a thought. Architeuthidæ (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The article is fine. It reflects the preponderance of what has been written about the subject in reliable sources. There is no "obvious bias". - MrX 🖋 18:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Case and point. If editors keep pointing out the same bias about the article, it's time for us to do some self-reflection and ensure that our own biases are not blinding us from identifying anti-Trump bias within the article. I noticed that you attacked Trump in your below remark, claiming (without evidence) that "race" is somehow a part of Trump's brand. You are entitled to your opinions of course, but here on Wikipedia we need to make sure we're not letting our personal opinions get in the way of objective encyclopedia articles. Architeuthidæ (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Architeuthidæ, here's a bit about "bias". There is a difference between article content and biased statements by editors on talk pages. Unlike talk pages, editorial bias must not appear in, or affect, article content. We must faithfully reproduce the spirit and bias of the sources we use. Article content and sources do not have to be neutral and/or unbiased. On the contrary, NPOV is about editorial bias, and editors must not allow their biases to cause them to censor content or neutralize the bias found in RS. We are required to document that bias and include it in the article. Content bias is okay. The "neutral" in NPOV does not mean "no bias", and NPOV does not mean "no point of view". Most RS have a bias, and that's okay.

One should be careful about attacking other editors for revealing their anti-Trump bias as that can come back to bite one if one is pro-Trump. Both can be seen as personal attacks, per WP:NPA: "Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions."

We have a bit of leeway here to express our political views as long as it doesn't get off on tangents that are unrelated to the improvement of article content or off-topic for the discussion. Sometimes it is necessary to explain the realities described by RS for some editors who seem ignorant of them. That's okay. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you about article bias and talk page bias. The article bias manifests itself here by using almost exclusively left-leaning sources, which all despise Trump and profit primarily from trying to hurt Trump, rather than from reporting the news. The talk page bias exists in allowing people to trash Trump and attack him as a racist, as two editors just did above - with no repercussions. Re: "NPA," I asked two anti-Trump editors for evidence that "race" is a central part of Trump's "brand," and received no reply. I think it's a fair question. If we're going to attack living persons, even on talk pages, we should provide reliable sources that support those attacks upon request. I have been attacked as "ignorant" twice, and am currently being harassed and threatened with legal action by another editor on my talk page. It comes with the territory, and remember: most people who are "anti-Trump" or "pro-Trump" wear the label with pride.

I absolutely agree with you about the "leeway" given to anti-Trump diatribes. Editors who defer to the scripture of Jeff Bezos, Jeff Zucker, Noah Oppenheim, Carlos Slim, etc. (often referred to as "RS" on Wikipedia) undoubtedly believe that their teachings are "reality," whereas facts that contradict these teachings are dismissed as merely part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" and "misinformation." These editors who stare intently at the shadows on the cave wall every night should be respected and heard, and never accused of being deranged or fanatical. This consideration and respect is also extended to editors who have discovered the sun, and do not necessarily take what they read in the newspaper and see on television at face-value. As long as we keep this in mind, we'll be able to continue productive discussion and editing. Architeuthidæ (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed trimming

"Racial views" and "Allegations of sexual misconduct" both have main articles already. So is it all right with people here if I trim those sections down to a paragraph or two? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure. No need to repeat information that is already in a separate article. That should also help with the size issues here. Mgasparin (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, congratulations to everybody here for finally reaching a consensus on how to trim. We finally got the article size below 400k for the first time since February 2019. Mgasparin (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, the sexual misconduct stuff has never been important to the public, except as it relates to the Billy Bush tape/Wikileaks timing and the Jailing of Michael Cohen. So I think there's lots that can be trimmed there. The racial "views" stuff, at least post 2011, is the core of Trump's brand and political success. I suppose the "squad go back" thing is insignificant, but I suggest you try to keep most of the post-2011, possibly with summary sources that give an overview of the significance to Trump's narrative to his core demographic voter groups. SPECIFICO talk 00:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, trim.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Err, race has absolutely nothing to do with Trump's "brand" or "success." A fairly disgusting remark that should be retracted. Architeuthidæ (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to reducing 'Racial views' by a paragraph or two. Paraphrasing what SPECIFICO correctly points out, Trump's racial views are core to his political brand. Maybe the last paragraph can be removed. Possibly the second paragraph can be condensed a bit. I think the 'sexual misconduct' section can probably be condensed to two paragraphs. - MrX 🖋 18:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Do either of you have any evidence to back up this inflammatory claim that "race" is "core to his political brand"? We really need to be careful here when attacking politicians in this manner, especially with wild allegations. Architeuthidæ (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I support MelanieN's proposal: those sections can be effectively trimmed to a few lines, notwithstanding the political exploitation of those themes. I would add the "Foundation" section to heavy trimming candidates; this has not been a central pillar of Trump's life, and the dedicated article covers it extensively enough for curious readers. — JFG ^talk 09:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we need to work on a draft of the trimming here on talk, as it's evident that the trim is agreeable but that there is disagreement as to what and how to trim. SPECIFICO talk 14:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)