Talk:Donald Trump

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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)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, upheld by RfC July 2024)

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. In citations, do not code the archive-related parameters for sources that 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)

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. (RfC October 2021)

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (RfC October 2021) Amended after re-election: After his first term, scholars and historians ranked Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history. (November 2024)

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, optionally using its shortcut, WP:TRUMPRCB.
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)

Lead: Consensus 43 vio?

Consensus #43 indicates that for the lead section, "the mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it." With that in mind, Space4Time3Continuum2x, could you provide a rationale for this edit? The lead is well in excess of an appropriate length and level of detail. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I still think that when your removal of longstanding content from the lead is challenged, you need to provide a rationale for the removal on the Talk page. (Your edit summary merely says "rework lead".) Per MOS:LEAD, the lead gives the basics in a nutshell, and six words defining the successful side ventures seem appropriate to me. Ditto the seven words explaining which families were affected by the family separation policy, the three words detailing the kind of Covid misinformation he spread, the sheer number of felony counts, and the sentence on the rollback of environmental policies. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

What do you think of Nikkimaria's comment, "The lead is well in excess of an appropriate length and level of detail." Bob K31416 (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

This. Adding a handful of words about every single topic adds up to a lot more than a handful, and when the lead is so overlong there would need to be a much stronger justification for doing that. In fact it would be appropriate to do more reworking. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Well this has taken a strange turn. Good luck. Bob K31416 (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Space4Time3Continuum2xSo why is there an issue with adding "just a handful of words" about the causes of death on January 6? Now it is highly misleading:

"he urged his supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol, which many of them then attacked, resulting in multiple deaths and interrupting the electoral vote count."

This statement saying "resulting in multiple deaths" is MISSING CONTEXT. This source I cite below clearly spells out that all deaths were either natural causes or suicide or Ashley Babbit, not the result of violence of the rioters. The average reader, including over half of the students I showed this, is led into thinking that the deaths were violent after mentioning an "attack."

These Are the People Who Died in Connection With the Capitol Riot https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/us/politics/jan-6-capitol-deaths.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

(Personal attack removed) 68.234.168.22 (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Do we say "violence by rioters"? Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the personal attack. You already uttered your opinion in "This is biased and false", above (here, here, and here). Consensus #62 applies. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, where is the personal attack? Has a comment been removed?

I agree that the current wording is misleading. 'Resulting in' can clearly be read two ways, one of which contradicts #62, as it essentially means the attackers killed them. Riposte97 (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The personal attack was removed per WP:RPA. To point you to that edit would largely defeat the purpose of the removal. It's in the page history if you have the time and the interest. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't think that was an appropriate removal, but I don't care enough to argue the point.

Focussing on the issue, the current wording can be read to violate consensus. The simplest way to fix that is probably just to end the sentence at 'attacked', but open to suggestions. Riposte97 (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Space4T, I have difficulty reconciling your editsum with #43. It seems to me you should've provided separate editsum rationale for each and every change item you reverted, even if that required 10+ edits. I know that's a lot of work.

It also seems to me that Nikkimaria should have facilitated that by splitting their edit into discrete pieces. Mass changes like this are always a problem, to the point I might support a consensus item forbidding them in the lead or anywhere else. Minimizing page history entries is not a priority. (It would also force editors to slow down a little with their bold edits, never a Bad Thing.) ―Mandruss ☎ 22:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

How exactly would we go about forbidding mass changes? Just curious. Cessaune [talk] 22:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I don't do details: the devil's in them. Lol. Yeah, I asked myself the same question. I'm not the smartest guy in the room, as you know, and I think it would be doable if we put our collective mind to it. I don't think it could be codified with precision, and Wikipedia hates that kind of thing anyway. It's one of those things where there are three areas or zones: a clear "yes" (i.e., the vast majority of bold edits here), a clear "no" (e.g., Nikkimaria's edit), and a gray area in between. For the most part, the only disputes would occur in the gray area, and it might not be excessively large. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. It would potentially save a lot of time, because people could get down to discussing the real issues in dispute. Riposte97 (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

It was one bulk edit involving removals, changes of sentence order, and copy edits, and I challenged most of it. My objection wasn't that an edit to the lead hadn't been discussed beforehand. From now on, I won't ask editors to take edits I challenge to the Talk page; I'll leave it to the author to figure out what to do. In this case, it was also redundant because the editor isn't new and has been active on this page for a while. Instead, my editsum should have said s.th. like "partial rvt - challenging rmv of info vital to understand e.g. fam. sep., type of covid misinformation, rollback of environm. policies, the astounding number of felony counts …". It's not as if editors (not just me) hadn't complained about mass edits before. If there had been 10+ separate edits, I or other editors could have objected to individual ones. Editsum "rework lead": I know we're not required to state a reason, but it's a courtesy to do so, especially in a much-litigated article such as this one. Maybe the reason for removing e.g. mention that he separated migrant families at the border would have convinced me or other editors not to challenge it? (First time I heard of minimization of page history - is that a thing?) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

(First time I heard of minimization of page history - is that a thing?) Assuming you're serious, I meant "minimizing the number of page history entries". It's really the only reason one would do such a mass edit, beyond saving the wee bit of time required to start each smaller edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I left out a word - can't really call it a typo. Brain spasm? I was referring to your sentence Minimizing page history entries is not a priority. Off-topic: today's NYT has an aerial view of the swirls and eddies on top of Trump's head. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

So I gathered, but I guess I misunderstood you, thinking you were thinking of "minimizing" as in minimizing a window or something.

I suppose I could be more cynical and say that an editor might do a mass edit to make it more difficult to challenge (all the more reason to ban mass edits). ―Mandruss ☎ 15:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I do recall discussion along the lines of, "If you edit en masse, don't complain about being challenged en masse." What we're considering above is simply formalizing that and giving it teeth. Your editsum would have been "rv per consensus 66" and #43 would not have been in play. Or, better yet, Nikkimaria would've been aware of #66 and refrained from the mass edit in the first place. I think it's worth pursuing. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• FYI, the Trump lead is about twice as large as the Biden lead. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

My take: The lead is too long because lead summarizes body and body is too long. You can't fix the former without first fixing the latter. This well-intentioned reduction is occurring in the wrong place.

But we're mixing a process dispute, which is how this thread started, with a content dispute, and it might be more useful to separate them. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It's like obesity leads to all sorts of medical problems. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Mos def. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Regarding this edit: your edit summary is absolutely correct that he spread other misinformation, which is why your revert is incorrect - specifying one kind of misinformation makes it appear that that was the only kind, when in fact it was a much broader issue. Similarly with the "slowly" piece: the problem was his immediate reaction was denial or contradiction, which is what the text goes on to say. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: We had a ginormous discussion about this sentence almost exactly a year ago, and the current version is what we landed on. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

That ginormous discussion didn't find consensus for this version so much as it fell back on it as a default, because editors struggled to balance concision with the nuance of describing the various misinformation at play. The reverted version solves the issues raised in that discussion: it is concise without misleading, it is correct in a more comprehensive way than the current version, and it leaves discussion of those nuances to the linked article for those who wish to learn more. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. Consensus version restored. Zaathras (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

As the item you cited indicates, there is no consensus on specific wording; the only requirement is that his reaction is mentioned, which it was prior to your revert. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

As the wording has remained largely as-is since, I'm afraid it is. Feel free to see if there's support for your proposed change. Otherwise, status quo ante. Zaathras (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

At best, your editsum rationale was incorrect per the cited consensus item. IMNSHO, any editor would be within process to revert you on that basis alone. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras: In addition to the above, your most recent revert violates the arbitration remedy; please self-revert. Do you have a substantive objection to the change? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras: Re: [1][2] Just how much consensus do you require for this relatively inconsequential issue? Do you propose pinning this section with the hope of substantially more participation? Starting an RfC? Dispute resolution? What? I'm seeing a need to WP:WIN and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that we don't often see at this article in recent years.

As I said previously, an editor would be within process to revert you on the basis of your incorrect edit summary. You could not dispute that fact, so you resorted to other tactics: a de facto consensus argument and a no consensus argument, neither having any merit in this situation. Even if you claim they have merit, you can't play them like trump cards against the opposition of two editors. That's not how it works, and I think you know that. It's like linking to WP:NPOV and expecting all others to bow in deference—a common newbie mistake. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

All that said, if Space4Time3Continuum2x sides with you, that makes it 2–2 and in fact no consensus. It's not entirely clear to me that he does, so let's ask him. If there is no consensus and status quo ante is clear enough (I haven't checked), you WP:WIN.

Even so, you and others went about it the wrong way: disputes should be addressed on this page, not by re-re-re-reversions on the article page, and edit summaries are a very poor substitute for collaborative discussion. Only after the discussion has played out should the article be touched, if then. I don't much care how things are done elsewhere, or even what the guidelines say (guidelines have to be written for the general case); I've spent enough time elsewhere to know that method doesn't work very well for highly contentious subject areas. It favors and rewards the aggressive, thereby encouraging aggressiveness. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Sequence of edits: Nikkimaria, my rvt, NikkiMaria rvt, Zaathras rvt, Nikkimaria rvt, Zaathras rvt. Seems to me that Nikkimaria shouldn’t have made their first revert after I challenged their first edit because there was no consensus for a change at the time, and there isn’t one now (are you the second editor supporting removal)? I still think that "promoted misinformation about testing and unproven treatments" would have been the better version but one year isn't long enough for me to want to go through s.th. like that archived discussion again. What about consensus #48? Completely ignored by every editor in the 2023 discussion (I plead non-involvement in the 2020 RfC with resulting unawareness of #48 , and I'm aware of ignorance of the law not being an excuse) that, in practice, appears to have resulted (who can tell?) in a new consensus and new wording of the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I'll buy your process analysis. I'll also drop out of the !voting, since I don't have a content opinion here (my error). That makes it 2–1 in favor of status quo ante.

This kerfuffle points to the importance of stricter adherence to BRD, and I arrived late causing me to read the situation wrong. Apologies to Zaathras for some of what I said.

Nikkimaria: When one's bold edit is reverted, it goes to the talk page until there is a consensus for the change (or the bold editor chooses not to challenge the challenge). As we've seen, there is some disagreement about what constitutes a consensus, but we weren't close to one at the time of your first revert. Disruption ensued. Zaathras's reverts were also wrong IMO (the remedy for article disruption is not more article disruption), but yours was wrong first. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

We may disagree about what constitutes a consensus, but what is clear is that it's not a vote. At the time of my first revert, the only argument put forward in favour of status quo here was a previous discussion that arrived at no consensus. That hadn't changed by the second. Space4Time: do you have a rationale for your preferred version? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

"Your argument is invalid, so it doesn't count, so I win." I don't think I've ever seen that logic succeed, nor should it. Except in cases where no rationale whatsoever was given (that's what a vote is), we accept the numbers or appeal to a higher power, such as RfC or dispute resolution. Space4T's rationale is here.

Or, we can try to change the numbers by swaying others. If that fails after a reasonable amount of time, see above. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

We discount invalid arguments all the time - there's several items in the consensus list along those lines.

I responded to Space4T's edit summary in my post above; I'd be interested in seeing further discussion around that, if anyone has counterpoints. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not enough to be right in your view; you have to persuade others that you're right. If you can't do that, you're not right by Wikipedia's definition of right. Very little is so cut-and-dried black-and-white. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I'm very interested in anyone weighing in on why they feel I'm wrong on the substance of the edit under discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure, the only question being how much more time you want to commit to such a small issue, both yours and others'. Nobody is required to respond to you, as I'm sure you know, and a failure to respond does NOT constitute surrender. I know it can be damned frustrating, but we don't have to keep talking until you think we've talked enough. If others have had enough—and until you successfully pursue another avenue—and unless other editors jump in before auto-archival of this section—this is a settled issue against your bold edit. Gaming the system? Depends on one's perspective.

But your first revert was still wrong. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Banning mass edits, Phase 1

See #Lead: Consensus 43 vio? for limited-participation discussion of a proposed ban of mass edits, such as this one, at this article. Radical, perhaps, but when has that stopped this pack of rebellious anarchists? See the linked discussion for (imo) strong supporting arguments.

A big hurdle is finding workable language for a consensus item. "No mass edits" would likely be unconstructive and ineffective. That's the sole purpose of this thread; if workable language can be hammered out, we can proceed separately with a !vote. If not, any further discussion would be pointless.

Categorical Opposers of the whole concept can sit this one out, as can Supporters who just want to say they support. Both groups should wait for the !vote, if any occurs. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Term suggestions?

Myri-edit, poly-edit, multi-edit, vari-edit, numer-edit, omni-edit...and forge-edit XD

Cheers. DN (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The issue is, I just can't think of a way to codify something like this. It's just going to be another consensus #58, except a lot more relevant to everyday tasks, and a lot more spiky. Bytesize? Or does someone have to specifically look at someone's edit to decide whether they broke the rule? Cessaune [talk] 01:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cessaune What if the parameters were limited to individual sections? DN (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Consider phrasing the consensus item as advice:

When possible, avoid large edits consisting of multiple individual changes. Instead, break it up into multiple edits. Such large edits can be difficult to sort out the acceptable from the less acceptable and may be reverted.

Bob K31416 (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Now we're talkin'. That's a good start. It reads like a guideline, and we revert per guidelines all the time. We might need some way to convey that (like guideline-based reverts) such a revert is not unchallengeable on this page. Some edits, hopefully uncommon, may fall into a gray area that requires a bit of discussion. If we ended up with too much such discussion, well, we could cancel the consensus item and say we tried. Nothing should be set in stone. I much prefer "try it and see" over crystal ball opposition. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

If my gray-area edit gets reverted, am I going to break it down into smaller pieces despite disagreeing with the revert, or start a discussion about it? Lacking a need to win and a battleground mentality, and assuming good faith on the part of the reverter (and wishing to save time), I suspect the former. And I'll think twice about future gray-area edits, erring on the side of smaller edits. I don't think I'm atypical in that respect, at least at this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Avoid edits with several individual factual changes. Such edits may be reverted in toto if they make it difficult for other editors to separate the acceptable from the less acceptable. Instead, make separate edits for individual changes. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Unhelpfully "mass" edits needn't be factual changes. Mere copy edits may be a mix of the acceptable and the less acceptable. (And "factual change" is a fuzzy concept anyway: there are disagreements about whether a change is a factual change or a mere copy edit.) Of course, an editor could always opt for partial revert or further improvement over full revert, neither invoking this consensus item.

Now, a new consensus item should not preclude "mass" changes of the same type, such as conforming the article to a particular MoS guideline. It's hard to object to only part of such an edit. I don't know that this item would need such a fine point on it. On the other hand, I have just recently said re a different issue that we should comply with the letter of an item or change it.[3]

This is a complicated business, no question, but worth it imo. We've seen encouraging progress with only one day and five editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

So, a mass edit could in theory be reverted, but wouldn't be required to be? Just clarifying. Cessaune [talk] 03:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Sounds about right. If you object to only part of an edit, and you're not in the mood for a partial revert (you shouldn't be required to go to that extra effort just because the bold editor failed to go to the smaller extra effort of splitting), then revert. Otherwise, don't. It should go without saying that the item could be abused in any of several ways, and it would hardly be unusual in that respect. For example, it could be invoked when the partial revert would be really easy. Solution: peer pressure. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the logic of your second sentence makes sense. If you make three changes in a single edit and I revert two of them in another edit, that's more effort from me than a one-click revert, but it's less effort from me than you put into making all three. And if I agree with one of your changes, I shouldn't be reverting it just because I'm "not in the mood". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm. I won't argue with those points. The argument for something like this is clearly illustrated in the issue that started it all. Your edit put Space4T in the position of having to manually revert certain parts of the edit, whereas undo would've likely worked given that he's here every day like clockwork. He would have had to manually revert them individually, one change item at a time, so as to facilitate one-issue-one-thread discussion, and because each one needed a separate rationale for reversion. How did it make sense for him to bear that burden, when you could have fairly easily split your edit? What is your compelling argument against splitting? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The argument for something like this is clearly illustrated in the issue that started it all. I don't think this makes sense either. You posit that if Space4T had responded "correctly" he would have reverted those edits individually with separate rationales. If I had made every change in that edit individually, to revert some but not others he would have had to revert each individually with separate rationales anyways, and in that case would not even have had the opportunity to bundle several with the same rationale (which seems to have been the case, from his explanation above), as he would if the original edits were combined.

If an editor bears the burden of making multiple good-faith changes, it seems quite reasonable that a reverter should bear the burden of objecting to whichever of those they'd want to object to, rather than asking the editor to exert greater effort to make it easier for the reverter to erase their labour. Bundling changes in this way is common practice and would need a compelling argument to justify "outlawing"; I'm not seeing one here. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

If I had made every change in that edit individually, to revert some but not others he would have had to revert each individually with separate rationales anyways Quite true. I didn't mean to say that would've been part of the extra work for him; merely that it was part of the need for the extra work for him. Confused yet? Bundling changes in this way is common practice This article is probably unusual in its highly developed processes that have evolved over the years, and in its commitment to them (the consensus list is only part of it). It seems to have a culture and personality all its own, and editors must think it's superior (or at least no worse) or the culture and personality wouldn't have survived for so long. It's not like a handful of process wonk weirdos are to blame for creating this and keeping it going; I've seen a dozen or two "regulars" come and go since 2015. Few voices have said that this article can't innovate in these areas because new arrivals can't be asked to adapt in relatively small ways. This might help explain why bundling doesn't work well here. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't think you're here to help work out language for the consensus item. I've asked everyone else to stand by. No consensus is being sought here beyond the language itself. Not that I don't enjoy your company, of course. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Manually reverting a part of a large edit is more difficult than using UNDO to revert the part if it was a separate edit. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion:

1) An edit should not be able to be reverted simply because it is a mass edit. A user who wishes to revert must first provide a valid rationale in their edit summary, AND cite the consensus item.

2) An editor is allowed to revert a revert that simply cites the consensus item without any further rationale. Cessaune [talk] 14:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

What kind of further rationale did you have in mind? "rv per consensus 66 because I disagree with only part of this large edit and I feel a partial revert would be too difficult to do properly" ―Mandruss ☎ 17:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Just the typical stuff. Like, why you disagree with the edit. For example, you couldn't say "reverting per consensus #66" and have that be your entire edit summary. Cessaune [talk] 17:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

That's the point of the item in the first place. You have one reason for opposing change item A, another for change item B, and six more for change items C through H. It would be entirely impractical to put all of your individual rationales in a single edit summary. There's a length limit, never mind the difficulty of doing so.

Anyway, if you were to do that, you wouldn't need to invoke this item, right? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Let me clarify. If an edit consists of A, B, and C, the reverter needs to disagree with at least one of them, and make that clear in the edit summary. Such an edit summary would look something like this: revert — edit C is not applicable per [policy]; invoking consensus #66. In my mind, you wouldn't be able to revert a mass edit simply because it is a mass edit, and you wouldn't be able to revert a mass edit even if you thought that part of the edit failed to comply with some rule, unless you explicitly state this in the edit summary.

If I disagreed with item A and B, but not C, yes, I think I would have to put all of [my] individual rationales in a single edit summary. Otherwise, it is extremely tedious for the editor I reverted to figure out what exactly I'm opposing. And hyperbole ignores reality—no one is compacting eight different edits into one edit. Maybe four, max. Explaining a rationale for three separate types of edits isn't nearly as tedious as doing the same for eight. Cessaune [talk] 22:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

you wouldn't be able to revert a mass edit simply because it is a mass edit - Of course. The consensus item could state that explicitly, although I think it could be made apparent without doing so.

Hyperbole? I see upwards of ten distinct unrelated changes in Nikkimaria's edit, and one could quite reasonably object to any one of them without objecting to others (even nearby others). And, as I say below, one could object to all of the changes, so we're talking about potentially upwards of ten rationales. And we've seen mass edits even larger than Nikkimaria's. No hyperbole here; if anything, the opposite, whatever the word is for that.

the reverter needs to disagree with at least one of them - Sure, if you think it's useful to require a rationale for at least one objection, I have no problem with that despite not really seeing the point. Requiring more than one, no. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Ten is a stretch. You're telling me you consider the reworking of the felony sentence four distinct unrelated edits? Because, if that's the case, and a consensus #66 existed, you could revert based on that rationale, which I would decidedly not support. Cessaune [talk] 00:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Pointless to argue this point. we've seen mass edits even larger than Nikkimaria's. Literally five times that size. No hyperbole. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Otherwise, it is extremely tedious for the editor I reverted to figure out what exactly I'm opposing. They don't need to know that at this juncture. The objective of your revert is not to help them address your content concerns; it's to get them to break down the edit so you can more easily and more effectively convey your content concerns. Then they can address them. You're "opposing" the bundling—a process objection, nothing more. When we revert a violation of the 24-hour rule, does our editsum say anything about the content involved? No, because it's irrelevant to the revert. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The 24-hour rule is an Arbitration remedy. We revert in that case because we are required to. In this case, there is no requirement to revert. So the two are fundamentally different.

a process objection, nothing more—you say that as if we aren't defining process right now. Cessaune [talk] 14:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

What would've been your response if I had omitted those last two sentences? Just curious, since the rest of the comment is salient but ignored (aside from your last sentence, which I can't make much sense of). ―Ass ☎ 22:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

If, for example, I disagree with three separate edits, I would have to provide edit summaries for each of them. I don't see why, if the three edits are bundled together, that that fact needs to change. Your proposal creates an intermediary step that wastes time and is tedious for both the editor and the reverter. Cessaune [talk] 00:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

There's a length limit -- we've seen mass edits even larger than Nikkimaria's -- The objective of your revert is not to help them address your content concerns [...] -- You provide the three (or twelve) edit summaries after the split, which is the point of the split and the consensus item. Intermediary step, yes. Takes more time for the bold editor, yes, and the way to avoid that is to effing refrain from mass edits. Takes more time for the reverter, not so much. Wastes that time, no.

Now we're getting circular. Don't make me invoke IDHT. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

In fact, those last two sentences have really pissed me off. I accepted your compromise below; you asked me a question after I had already agreed with your proposal. I answered truthfully as to my opinion on the topic. So, respectfully, how are we getting circular? I've already agreed with you! I privately disagree, but I am willing to forgo all that in the name of compromise, and I feel like I made that pretty obvious below.

And fucking IDHT? Am I going against an established consensus? Or are you suggesting that your opinion is shared by the broader community, despite the fact that it's mainly been a two-person discussion this entire time? Or is it something else? Do I lack competence? I don't get it. Even if I don't get your point (which I do) how is IDHT in any way appropriate? Cessaune [talk] 02:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we're supposed to counter each other's points or accept them and let them shape subsequent discussion, not simply ignore them and continue to argue as if they hadn't been made. That's how I interpret IDHT—right or wrong. Otherwise, if we're now spelling out "fucking", it's time to step away for awhile. I'm beginning to care less about this anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Interpret IDHT however you want, but don't go around essentially accusing editors of disruptive editing for relatively weak reasons. As it stands, I don't believe that I was ignoring your points, and, if I was, I didn't intend to. But I really feel like I wasn't. Cessaune [talk] 04:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Trying again after sleep.

Your comment, If, for example, I disagree with three separate edits, I would have to provide edit summaries for each of them. I don't see why, if the three edits are bundled together, that that fact needs to change. betrays your failure to understand my point, The objective of your revert is not to help them address your content concerns; it's to get them to break down the edit so you can more easily and more effectively convey your content concerns. You're improperly conflating and mixing the content objections with the process objection.

You're also stuck on "three edits" when I've already made the point that it's sometimes a lot more than three—we've seen mass edits even larger than Nikkimaria's—and too many to cram into a single editsum. You have neither countered that point nor accepted it.

Hence my frustration.

Yes, I'm backing up after prematurely agreeing to the compromise. Apologies for that.

I hope this provides some clarification; but I don't think I could be any clearer. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

1) Who defines whether this is a process thing, or a content thing, or both? We do. You can wish for it to be a process thing only, but, as long as there is a requirement to state objection to at least one item, it's both a content and a process issue. And I feel like the idea that The objective of your revert is not to help them address your content concerns; it's to get them to break down the edit so you can more easily and more effectively convey your content concerns is a simple matter of opinion, an opinion I don't fully agree with.

2) It was apparently Pointless to argue this point, so I let it drop. If it's true that we've seen edits literally five times larger than Nikkimaria's, I'm in the wrong, I guess. Cessaune [talk] 03:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

so I let it drop. And continued to argue as if the point hadn't been made.

Since we appear to have irreconcilable differences, and there is no other participation, it is now a dead issue. Thanks for playing. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mandruss I think that could be premature. what leads you to believe the other editors have moved on. I still see a use for discussing mass-edit parameters and limitations. DN (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

By all means, feel free to discuss them. I didn't mean to imply that I have any authority to end a discussion under these circumstances; if I wanted to do that, I would've closed. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

By the way, the item could also be invoked when you object to all of the bold mass edit. So I've been wrong to say that "part of" "only part of" is a requirement. The point is the difficulty of individual manual reverts. I don't think either of the two language proposals (Bob & Space4T) take this into account. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC) Redacted 18:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Simple: you need to object to at least a portion of the mass edit to invoke the consensus item. Cessaune [talk] 14:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Please clarify. I've already said I could live with a requirement to state objection to at least one of the change items. Will you accept that compromise? If so, doesn't that moot most of this recent back-and-forth? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure; yes. Cessaune [talk] 01:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Lead tags excessive detail

I reverted the deletion of the Trump rollback of environmental policies and of the number of felony counts, among other changes to the lead. Now the sentences have been tagged as excessive details. Are the tags justified?

• Environment. Sentenced proposed for removal: He weakened environmental protections, rolling back more than 100 environmental policies and regulations.
• Felony counts. Current version:

  He is on trial in New York on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, and was indicted in Florida on 40 felony counts related to his mishandling of classified documents; in Washington, D.C., on four felony counts of conspiracy and obstruction for efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election; and in Georgia on ten charges of racketeering and other felonies committed in an effort to overturn the state's 2020 election results.

  Proposed version:

  He is on trial in New York for falsifying business records, and was indicted in Florida for mishandling of classified documents, in Washington, D.C., for conspiracy and obstruction for efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and in Georgia for racketeering and other felonies committed in an effort to overturn the state's 2020 election results.

Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Survey: Lead tags excessive detail

• Remove both tags. Environment: Keep the sentence. The NYT lists 100 environmental rules that were officially reversed, revoked or otherwise rolled back and more than a dozen other potential rollbacks in progress but were not finalized by the end of his term. Felony counts: Keep the numbers. That's an astonishing number of felony counts for anyone, let alone a former president currently running for another term. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep tags

  In the first one, I would keep part of it: He weakened environmental protections.

  In the second one, I would reduce it to: He is currently on trial in several criminal courts for activities related to his presidency and business.

  Bob K31416 (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  That misstates the crux of the crimes. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  Could you explain? Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• The tags are currently appropriate, but I would support Bob's resolution. The purpose of the lead is not to collect things that are astonishing, but to present a balanced and proportionate summary of the article. Given the length of this content in the article body relative to the article as a whole, Bob's version is much closer to proportional than the tagged version. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. Bob's version is an improvement. Riposte97 (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with Bob’s version. Convictions are more serious than accusations, so mere accusations should not be detailed in the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• No tags, retain current version of text A few editors exhibit a zeal to trim this article in a belief that sacrificing detail in exchange for some nebulous, ill-defined goal of "readability" is a desirable goal. It is not. The subject of this article is a complex and extensively, extensively-written about individual. There's a lot to say, and we do the readers a disservice if incomplete coverage is presented to them. Zaathras (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Readers would not be ill-served by having to go to linked Trump sub-articles for much of the detail currently in this article. It's less about readability than proper hierarchical structure and reduction of redundant detail that has to be coordinated between articles. Many editors find it difficult to grasp that this article is merely the trunk of a large Trump tree, and the sub-articles are there to be read by interested readers.

  And who knows how many readers want that level of detail? I probably would not, preferring the executive summary. I'm solidly uninterested that Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (multiply by ~200 in the Foreign policy section alone), but I might want a four-sentence summary of Trump's foreign policy vis-a-vis Iran (which I can't get at any other article). The "disservice" is in not giving me the kind of information I seek. If a reader doesn't want that much detail, yes, it does get in the way and readability does become an issue.

  "Summary" does not mean redundantly duplicating the most important details, which is what this article currently does; rather, it means substantially reducing the level of detail—providing an overview. No doubt, it requires a skill not possessed by many editors, certainly including me. But it is not un-doable. We've got some smart and talented people around here. All it takes is a change in mind set, which is years overdue. (Inserted 21:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC) after replies.)

  Otherwise, no opinion on this specific issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  FYI, it's about items in the lead. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think Zaathras is too competent to refer to "incomplete coverage" in the context of the lead alone. That's a newbie mistake approaching absurdity. If I rambled into an off-topic tangent, apologies, but Zaathras opened the door. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  It was about everything, Bobs. You know what they say about assumptions. Zaathras (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• No tags, no further trimming needed. The subject is possibly the most-covered politician of recent years, and as such the level of detail is justified. Cortador (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  The level of detail in these particular statements is disproportionate. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• Remove tags to prevent misleading omissions in trimming. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  Is there a version that is more proportional that would not, in your view, result in "misleading omissions"? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  @SPECIFICO: ↑? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep the environment sentence the same, but enact the proposed version (not Bob's version) of the felony sentence. The lead should be a less-detailed summary of the article, explaining the important bits. The important bits to the section about felony charges are why he is being prosecuted, not the exact list of charges. This should be obvious. @Cortador: This level of detail may be justified in the body, but the lead should be a quick, short summary of the whole article. We would still mention all of this in detail in the body. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  "Obvious" is just about the worst argument one can make. Here, it is both self-contradictory and incorrect. SPECIFICO talk 17:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on the tags for now, but I do hope we can agree to removal when this discussion is concluded (even if the conclusion is a petering out). I think the environmental line is fine as is, but I would like to see the criminal case content trimmed down. I think we can present the indicted charges in aggregate (is "state-level" too imprecise a descriptor if DC is included?) and I don't think we need to mention which states are associated with which charges. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2024

Could you remove the “severely” from the de-regulation section (regarding firearm policy), it comes off as biased. ArcTheMedic (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

IS this what the sources say? Slatersteven (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Fixed the citation's url.[4] The source does say "severely" mentally ill. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

For reference, here's context, "...including a bill that made it easier for severely mentally ill persons to buy guns."

Mandruss, You might want to check other reliable sources. Examples of reliable sources that have descriptions without "severely", or words to that effect are, NBC 2019 NBC 2017 CNN ABC AP It looks like the given Politico source is unique or in the minority of reliable sources that use "severely". The only other source I found with "severely", or words to that effect, was a congressman's website [5] where he was advocating for his bill. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

"Mental illness" can include any mental health condition, like low level depression and anxiety. "Severe mental illness" is a term that focuses on schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, PTSD, etc. Background checks don't prevent people with all mental illness from buying a firearm, just severe conditions, especially if it has resulted in hospitalizations. Stories on the 2016 rule are not clear about the distinction, because journalists are not subject matter experts on this, but the rules are clearly not meant to bar anyone with some social phobia or fear of flying from owning a gun. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Bob, it should be noted that this was a misuse of the edit request facility, which is not an alternative way to start a discussion thread. If discussion is or might be required, the OP should click "New section" at the top of this page.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for editors who do this, since it shows they haven't bothered to read the instructions before using edit request (or they have read them and ignored them). That's disrespectful to everybody, only starting with the editors who developed the edit request facility and painstakingly wrote those instructions.

It's not like an editor has to be aware of the WP:EDITREQ page. Adequate instructions are prominently presented in the edit request path. To see this, log out and click "View source" at the top of the article page. Included in the instructions is: "What an edit request IS NOT for: [...] making a comment or starting a discussion: go to the talk page [...]".

Now that you have morphed this into a discussion, it has to stay on the page until 14 days idle; otherwise, it could have been manually archived today, per #13. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Flagged For Non Neutrality

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

---

I have been reading through a number of chats on wikipedia, and this one should be flagged for violating the Neutrality policy, especially given the calls for neutrality in the chat have been rejected 2601:246:5A83:D090:9C52:9A1E:C889:AB5A (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have "chats", so I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean discussion on this talk page, that's not required to be "neutral". ―Mandruss ☎ 00:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Please note that this was a bad faith copypasta thread. The IP pasted the exact same message into multiple unrelated Talk pages in a lazy attempt to cause disruption. We do not need to waste our time dealing with trolls. Any further such threads should simply be removed per WP:DENY. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Point taken. Now we have to look at the contribs for context, rather than taking the post at face value. Considering that so little disruption was actually caused, I'm not sure it's worth it (and in fact the point of consensus 61 is to minimize said disruption without unnecessary hostility, and it's been successful at doing so). DENY is there for articles that don't have a consensus 61 or something similar (basically all other articles, I suspect). It would've helped if you had referred to the contribs in your editsum; you gave us zero information to work with, and we couldn't have known that your competence is beyond challenge.

It should be understood that we outright-remove plenty of bias complaints, such as the one that preceded this one. The difference is whether there was "clearly bad faith". To make editors go research contribs before making the decision is itself a form of disruption.

And besides, was this editor's behavior materially different from adding {{POV}} to multiple articles? "Flagging" things the wrong way (being un-extended-confirmed, they couldn't have done it the right way), being wrong about the easily-misunderstood policy, and being a mere IPv6 editor with unknown other editing history do not constitute trolling or "clearly bad faith". They were not verbally abusive or libtard-hating over-the-top disrespectful like the other guy. Give a little respect, receive a little respect in return.

Trolling is posting for the sole purpose of causing disruption; it's about intent, not effect (troll, sense 2). There is little to no evidence that was this editor's motive, and per AGF we grant the benefit of the doubt at this article. If you're going to use the word around these parts, please use it correctly. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

2020 Arizona campaign

@Bob K31416: Re this revert - "illustrate" per Merriam Webster definition "to provide with visual features intended to explain or decorate". The image contains nothing illustrative of either Arizona or the 2020 campaign. It's just one more photograph of Trump in front of a crowd that could have been taken anywhere since 2016, and the article already has a 2016 Arizona campaign image that at least says "Arizona". The 2020 campaign article has comparatively few images, and if you have side-by-side images — captioned that they were taken in Nevada on October 27 and in Arizona on the next day — it shows the frenetic pace shortly before the election and enlivens a long scroll down section after section of campaign details. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Your remarks and actions seem inconsistent and incorrect. For example, you wrote, "It's just one more photograph of Trump in front of a crowd that could have been taken anywhere since 2016..." Then why did you put it in the campaign article in the section 2020 campaign developments>October 2020 with the caption "Trump at October 28 rally at Phoenix airport, Arizona"? Bob K31416 (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The caption is based on the photographer's summary. As I said, I'm fine with the image as decoration in the campaign article which has comparatively few images. In this article, it doesn't add any information, and, IMO, sizewise we don't have room for pure decoration. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Space4T. This article's images already provide more than ample information about Trump's current/recent physical appearance. When there aren't enough informative images available, we have to accept some level of decoration to keep an article from seeming dry and uninviting; but this article is already doing that without this image. While I'm too lazy to do so (semi-retired), I encourage editors to work harder to find informative images for this article. Even a photo of Trump outside of a conservative business suit would be some improvement.

As for the campaign article or any other, that is not a topic for this page. And I'm intensely uninterested in (subjectively) inconsistent and incorrect remarks and actions. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Revert of official nomination

See edit

According to these RS Trump is the official nominee...PBS March 2024 - NBC March 2024 - AP News March 2024 etc...etc...

Unless a majority of sources use the word "dominate" I don't think it deserves to be in wikivoice...

I thought about including citations but that isn't where they go. DN (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• Nomination. "Presumptive" until certified. Quoting AP: "But the magnitude of their wins gave each man the delegate majority he needed to claim his party’s nomination at the summertime national conventions." That just means the delegates at the Republican nominating convention will be bound by party rules to vote for Trump to be certified as the party's presidential candidate to get on each state's ballot. (See also the Ohio Republican legislature's attempt to keep Biden off their state ballot because the Democratic nominating convention will take place after Ohio's certification deadline for presidential major party nominees of 90 days before the election, a deadline they gladly amended to 60 days the last time the Republican National Convention took place after the certification deadline (RNC and DNC take turns holding the conventions in July and August). As for the certainty of the nomination, in theory the party could change the rules, the candidate could drop out ...
• Dominate. Are there any RS for the proposed wording "strongly influence"? The subheading of the NYT article says that "Hoarding cash, doling out favors and seeking to crush rivals, the former president is dominating the G.O.P., preparing for another race and helping loyalists oust officials who thwarted his attempted subversion of the 2020 election." CNN: "a look at the data reveals that Trump now is the [Republican] establishment". FT editorial: "Donald Trump now owns the Republicans". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Investigations, criminal charges, civil lawsuits

This section could really be trimmed down, given that many of the cases have their own articles. For example, On March 30, 2023, a New York grand jury indicted Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. On April 4, he surrendered and was arrested and arraigned; he pleaded not guilty and was released. The trial began on April 15, 2024. tells us little about the case. Jack Upland (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It tells us that there is a criminal trial of a former U.S. president underway which is a big deal, at least until there is a verdict. If you want to trim down s.th. that has its own article and was DOA, maybe you could take a whack at this sentence in Donald_Trump#2024_presidential_campaign: In December 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump was disqualified from holding office due to his role in the Capitol attack until the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision via Trump v. Anderson in March 2024. I didn't get any anywhere due to this 2:1 low-participation discussion . Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Remove the St. John's photo-op?

I think we should remove it, or at least shorten it. It currently gets just as much coverage here as it does at the presidency article, which makes no sense since the presidency section should be summarizing the presidency article. Since it only gets a paragraph or two there, we don't really need to mention it in the summary here. I could potentially understand giving it a sentence in a section somewhere, but we currently give way too much weight to it. This article will need to cut a few things to make room for the impending election and the impending verdicts in his cases, and it is already very large. This seems like it is something that can go, and it can stay at the presidency article. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Remove.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I concur. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

One, maybe two sentences, with a piped section link to Presidency of Donald Trump#Photo-op at St. John's Episcopal Church. If they want even more detail, that section links to Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church. One click for each successive level of detail. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. It's only four sentences now, with one of the iconic images of his presidency, autocracy on the march for the purpose of a photo-op with a Bible, straight line to January 6 when the Pentagon dithered and dawdled so as not to create similar optics. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Space4Time3Continuum2x, Re "...straight line to January 6 when the Pentagon dithered and dawdled so as not to create similar optics." — That's an interesting point that the Capitol was not properly protected Jan 6 because of the St. Johns photo op. Why isn't that point in the Trump article's St. Johns photo op section, Jan 6 section, or the Jan 6 article? Is that point made in any source? Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It may not have been the only reason, the other being, "patriots, supporting our president, they wouldn't attack Congress, would they"? Online sources: NYT, HuffPo, Politico 2023, The Week, Politico 2021, Newsweek (William Arkin), Bloomberg, CNN, Bulwark, VF, Rollcall. Plus various books, some having been mentioned in previous discussions but both the discussions and the passages in the books would take me much longer to dig up. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Good work. I looked at just the first two sources but that was enough to convince me that the idea was out there. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

the presidency section should be summarizing the presidency article: according to which WP policy? Seems we've had similar discussions before, as in "let's just use the lead of the 'Presidency' article". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: According to the guideline WP:SYNC, which provides good guidance for writing this section. We can't follow it to the letter in this situation, but we should follow the general principles. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The people who wrote WP:SYNC haven't met Donald Trump. A "high-level or conceptual article" this definitely ain't, it's the story of grandfather's old ram, except it's not funny, and Grandpa may nap a lot, but he keeps waking up and adding to the story. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

We should remove highly significant content because why? Because an editor speculates about what might happen months from now? At least wait until there actually is such cause. There are many less significant nuggets for any future trims. SPECIFICO talk 02:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Which less significant nuggets are you referring to? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

For example, the whole Religion section could be cut. Most of the blow by blow of his purported business career could be summarized in 3 sentences. Etc. If future need be. SPECIFICO talk 02:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, made a start on that. Do you have a summary in mind for the business career piece? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It isn't speculation to note that we will need to add things to this page on the 2024 election, such as who wins and whether or not the loser accepts the results. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It's speculation to predetermine what might be triimed for any reason in the future. But its also jumping the gun. If the church bit were UNDUE, we wouldn't need to trade it for a player to be named later. SPECIFICO talk 03:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm proposing two candidates for trimming. #1: As I mentioned before, this sentence in Donald_Trump#2024_presidential_campaign mentions a mere blip on the 2024 campaign radar that is forgotten by now: In December 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump was disqualified from holding office due to his role in the Capitol attack until the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision via Trump v. Anderson in March 2024. #2: In two weeks or so, when the verdict is in, we should be able to update and shorten the section on the Manhattan criminal case considerably. Lafayette Square will keep cropping up as long as Trump is running for office. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I gather you don't support my suggestion, either. The philosophical difference rears its ugly head again. Where something is covered in a sub-article, that article should be the main go-to for readers. The function of this article should be to provide an easy path to the sub-article content, and it should do so in the form of a high-level summary/overview containing a link: substantially higher-level than we currently use for this topic in this article. Side benefit: Any subjective article length issues vanish forever. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's apply that to all the business deals. Keep just the core: 1) Commodore Hotel, 2) went broke, 3) pivot to The Apprentice. SPECIFICO talk 03:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Remove, unsure. Reduce sure. Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

This section has already been reduced to the detriment of our readers. The page is indexed so that readers are not burdened by length nearly as much as by omission and cryptic framing that omits significant detail. Once we send a reader to a subpage, and maybe to a secondary sub-subpage, they are off the track of the main page. It is far easier to navigate the main page table of contents than to blow up one's browser with a fog forest of detail pages. SPECIFICO talk 11:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It's only four sentences, and the picture. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

We should remove highly significant content because why? Because WP:SUMMARY is a guideline, and it says that we should make the presidency section summarize the important parts of the presidency article. Giving this one controversy as many words here as at that article is not compatible with the guideline. I will agree with Space4 that some of the post-presidency stuff should also be trimmed. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

"Also??" What? There is no guideline that requires us to remove or further weaken this short section. SPECIFICO talk 13:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I think giving an entire section to this one controversy, with as much information about it here as at the more specific presidency page, violates SUMMARY. It also arguably violates UNDUE by giving more weight to this one incident than most sources do. It hasn't received much attention since it happened, and is not one of the controversies that I have seen any source bring up as a point against Trump, and they have brought up a lot of his old controversies from his presidency. I see no reason for this one incident to get an entire section. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

For more specific examples, we have one paragraph about his opinions on the ACA. We have one sentence about his thoughts on NATO. We have one sentence about his stance on abortion. All three of those get much more weight in the media than the photo-op. In light of that, per UNDUE, we should either increase how much room those three topics get or decrease the amount of room the photo-op gets. The first one is not feasible and would lead to serious size issues, so that leaves the second option, which is to remove most or all of the information about the photo-op. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

NATO and Abortion should indeed be expanded.Good catch. SPECIFICO talk 16:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It hasn't received much attention - you probably didn't notice it when it was mentioned in some other context. Quoting myself from another discussion: Baker/Glasser's The Divider devotes an entire chapter to The Battle of Lafayette Square, where "Trump had staged what would become the most infamous photo-op of his presidency".

Work cited
Baker, Peter; Glasser, Susan (2023) [2022]. The Divider. Anchor Books. ISBN 978-0-593-08296-6.

The event was notable and iconic — using federal law enforcement to break up a lawful demonstration for the purpose of staging a show of strength/dominance, with the Bible and the highest-ranking military officer as a prop. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I just checked Google News, it would appear that you are correct about it remaining relevant. I still feel like it should be trimmed, but count me neutral on removing it entirely. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I googled the keywords, Lafayette Square trump. As one can see from the hits, a year after the incident there were a lot of mainstream articles saying that Trump's photo-op was not the reason the park was cleared. The section seems to be misleading. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

You can't just look at the headlines popping up in Google searches. This was similar to Barr spinning Mueller's report into "total exoneration" for Trump, and some mainstream media fell for it. Some, e.g. NBC, reported that "Attorney General William Barr urged officials to speed up the clearing process once Trump had decided to walk through the area that evening". See Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church#Inspectors General. See also WaPo, Vox, Salon. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I looked at what you presented and it doesn't show that the park was cleared because Trump wanted a photo-op. Thanks for the effort, but our article section is misleading on that point. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

No, it isn't. We merely say that federal law-enforcement officials cleared the park, and then he walked and posed. The fence was scheduled to be erected later that evening, after the curfew set to begin at 7 p.m., and it actually was put up later that evening. The Trump-appointed IG at DHS refused to initiate any audit, investigation, or even review of the actions taken by DHS personnel, the DOJ IG’s report is still pending as of this month, and the Interior Department’s IG conducted a limited review , according to their own report. See WaPO, Vox, Salon. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

"We merely say..."? It's a false implication supported by obsolete references that were contradicted a year later. Just the raising of questions by the sources that you just presented isn't enough compared to the many mainstream reliable sources. Those many sources didn't seem to come out to support theories and analysis that the park was cleared for the photo-op, after it was shown that it wasn't. I'll wait and see what others think and let the chips fall where they may. Again, thanks for your efforts. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The section clearly conveys a false implication. It needs to change. Riposte97 (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Bob. The purpose and function of search engines is to show you that which you seek. Unfortunately in this case, it appears you searched for and found one of the many thousands of deflections. equivocations, and revisions of events covered in the NPOV content of our Trump pages. SPECIFICO talk 19:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be an incident that gathered a lot of attention at the time, but on investigation wasn't that earth-shattering. It has its own article and doesn't need to be discussed here.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• It should be like 1 sentence (2 max) tucked somewhere in this article. Not in it's own subsection. I've long supported the need for a general BLM/protest subsection where it could be, but I'm to lazy to write it right now and it probably wouldn't be accepted anyway. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 06:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't confuse Bill Barr with Smokey the Bear. If anything, we should be more explicit to debunk the various denials. SPECIFICO talk 06:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x, SPECIFICO, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, Jack Upland, Mandruss, Riposte97, Bob K31416, Slatersteven, Muboshgu, and Nikkimaria: I'm seeing a general agreement to, if not remove it, reduce it to a sentence or two. I am not currently seeing enough support to remove all mention of it. The only ones supporting the status quo are SPECIFICO and Space4. Pinging everyone to make sure I am correct in that assessment. Where do people think that the sentence should be placed in the article? QuicoleJR (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

It could go in Social issues. On balance, I'm unconcerned that it isn't covered in that section's linked "main article". It's covered in the grandparent section's main article.

Looking at the Presidency part of the table of contents, I'm struck by the glaring contrast between Lafayette Square and virtually all of the other subsections. They're all general in nature until you see section 5.5, then—BAM—a section about a single isolated event. UNDUE seems clear.

I'm inclined to change my support from 1–2 sentences to 2–3; one seems excessively low unless the sentence is made cumbersomely long. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Yep I think reducing to a couple of sentences is appropriate. Riposte97 (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Remove or 1-2 sentences. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Bypassing the Presidency article

I note that we currently link to Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church, bypassing the far-less-detailed content in the Presidency article. That violates principles of hierarchical structure and deprives readers of the opportunity to be satisfied by the level of detail in the Presidency article. One click for each successive level of detail, without skipping any. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Why? The hatnote says "main article", so it should logically lead to the main article. If it did not, we would be misleading readers. The Presidency article also has few details that aren't also contained in this article, while missing some that are. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Why? Didn't I already answer that? {{Main}} allows section links; see examples there. Apparently the community is not concerned that the hatnote says "article". I'm certainly not. If this "misleads" readers, that's already happening in countless other places in the encyclopedia.

Let's not get too hung up on semantics. "Main article:" can be interpreted as "Next level of detail:" without costing me any sleep. I honestly doubt readers care.

But the semantics are not entirely unimportant. Any problem can be avoided by using {{Further}} instead of {{Main}}, creating the hatnote "Further information:". This also supports section links.

Anyway, your concern becomes moot if the topic is deprived of its own subsection; in that case, there is no hatnote but rather an inline piped section link. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The Presidency article also has few details that aren't also contained in this article - Aren't we talking about dramatically reducing the details in this article? Similar levels of detail is precisely what should be avoided.

It goes to the system design principle that data redundancy is bad design: "Data redundancy leads to data anomalies and corruption and generally should be avoided by design [...]". Specific to our situation, we should avoid creating redundant levels of detail that have to be coordinated between articles. To some unknown degree, we surely fail to coordinate adequately, creating discrepancies ("corruption") across articles. An editor makes a change to this article and fails to look at one or more sub-articles to see if they also need changing. Cross-article coordination not being a priority for time-limited volunteers, the discrepancy no doubt often goes unnoticed for years, if not forever. Opportunities for that are to be minimized, and that's done by avoiding similar levels of detail. (It's still possible to create discrepancies, but less easy. You can make a change at the more-detailed level without affecting the less-detailed level, in which case no discrepancy is created.) ―Mandruss ☎ 02:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Both the Trump article section and the Trump presidency article section refer to the same photo-op article, so there shouldn't be a problem. The interesting idea that you brought up about computer programming doesn't seem useful here. Both sections should depend on the photo-op article, which seems like the ultimate authority with regard to the subject in Wikipedia. Seems more likely that problems can occur if the Trump presidency article section is represented as the place for more information about the photo-op, e.g. an editor at the Trump presidency article may make a mistake in interpreting the photo-op article or make a mistake interpreting a source. Also, I agree with a previous point that essentially says that the link to the Trump presidency article section isn't very useful compared to the link to the photo-op article. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Computer programming? Wikipedia is essentially a special-purpose database and most of the same concepts and principles apply here. It's about how we choose to structure and organize data. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

That would apply to every subsection and sub-subsection of the "Presidency" section. E.g., the main article for Economy is Economic policy of the Donald Trump administration, for Climate change, environment, and energy it's Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration, etc. This is Trump's biography. It should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. We have differences of opinions on what's significant enough to be mentioned here. If there's a consensus to move content to a related article, then the editor who removes the content from this article should be the one to add it to the other article or make sure that it's already present, and then possibly discuss inclusion or not with the editors on that page. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Disagree again. Conceptually, "Trump's biography" comprises a number of articles that are divided only because combining them would create an impossibly large article. If not for that, the content in the Presidency article would be in this article. Therefore it's part of "Trump's biography" (might as well be Donald Trump, Page 2), and that's very hard to dispute when a large part of this article, which you claim contains his entire biography, is about his presidency.

When you split part of this article into a new one (usually done only for size reasons), does that split content cease to be a part of his biography? I don't see how. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

You might want to clarify your position regarding the point, "That would apply to every subsection and sub-subsection of the "Presidency" section." In other words, do you want to change those links too? Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Where we're bypassing intermediate levels of detail, that would be an "ultimately, yes". It wouldn't have to all be done now, and scope expansion is often counterproductive.

This goes hand-in-hand with reducing the level of detail in this article where there is a sub-article, which largely guarantees that we're bypassing intermediate levels of detail. The St. John's topic provides a "test case" that helps us think about the concept. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Removal of small fire

@SPECIFICO: Please explain to me how the fact that the protestors started a small fire the night before the photo-op is relevant to our biography of Donald Trump. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Please consult the cited sources and sub-article content. SPECIFICO talk 23:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: The sub-article does not explain why it is important to include on the article for Donald Trump, only that it is relevant to the protests near the church. Like I said, please explain how the small fire that happened the day before is relevant to our biography of Donald Trump. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Charges in the Miami case

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I don't think we need to list each and every individual charge in the documents case, when "among other charges" will summarize it. We already use similar wording for the Georgia racketeering case. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Georgia indicted Trump for felonies concerning Georgia, i.e., attempting to overturn the election results in Georgia ("I just need x votes"), attempting to gain access to voting machines, etc., and we only name one charge (racketeering). The charges on the federal level are different, and replacing jointly with a personal aide, single counts of conspiracy to obstruct justice, withholding government documents, corruptly concealing records, concealing a document in a federal investigation and scheming to conceal their efforts with along with several other charges, some being joint charges with a personal aide may not be intended to whitewash but sure looks like it. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense. I am fine with keeping the list of charges. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Facts are facts...list each and every charge..let the courts decide Anonymous8206 (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Wealth

You have me at a disadvantage with an unlimited number of bold edits per day vs. three reverts, so for now I'm just venting. The self-funding billionaire business whiz paying $750 in taxes per year because of business losses is not an unimportant detail. As for the WWE, let's wait and see if the wrestling enthusiasts who think it's an important part of his bio will weigh in. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I self-reverted on the income tax part, since I did not realize that that sentence referred to how much he paid for all taxes. As for the WWE, do you actually object to this removal? I really do not see how it is important enough to include here. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the self-revert. WWE: I vaguely remember trimming that section considerably some time ago which was met with considerable resistance. WWE is big in the U.S., and Trump used it to market his persona just like the other shows (Howard Stern, Trumped, Fox and Friends), so IMO the two sentences are justified. But if nobody else objects to their removal, I'm not going to revert. It may result in something wordier, less well sourced being added. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

About the Jan 6 commission

@SPECIFICO: I removed the criminal referral by the Jan 6 commission because AFAICT, the DOJ did not follow it up and actually charge Trump. If my assessment was incorrect, please inform me. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

?? Yes he has been charged. Such referrals do not supercede prosecutors' discretion as to various details. SPECIFICO talk 17:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Were the charges actually related to the Jan 6 referral? Currently, they do not seem related. If they are not related, the referral did not directly lead to charges and my original point stands. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Inline tag in the lead after being reverted

@Nikkimaria: You made a bold edit to the lead, were reverted, and then tagged the reverted material instead of starting a discussion about the merits of your bold edit on the Talk page. Seems to me that that is an improper use of a tag. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't we already have an active discussion about this going above? QuicoleJR (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

You're right. I didn't even notice that this is the same content Nikkimaria had removed before. Doing it again while the content is under discussion? I started a new discussion because it didn't seem right to add this new tag to a discussion that's been ongoing (slowly) for two weeks, and this tag is for undue weight, not excessive detail. Not sure what to do about this now. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, such tagging is for articles that don't have a lot of competent editors around, and it feels more than a little WP:POINTy. I'd like to see a lot less of it here. Instead, use the damn talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

One of the purposes of that particular tag is to direct people to the talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

"People" already here don't need directing, and I don't recall ever seeing such a tag attract attention from "outside". If that's happened a handful of times, that doesn't justify the article clutter. It's little different from the {{Very long}} tag, which we have already decided to omit as consensus 64. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Home at birth

I am going to revert Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk · contribs)'s removal of the mention of 85-15 Wareham Place. Besides having a Wikipedia article, the location is (as the cite says) the address on Trump's birth certificate. I will reword to clarify this. Ylee (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks to me like he was born while his parents lived on Wareham and they moved to Midland Parkway a few years later, exact date unknown. I don't see why the article couldn't convey both; it doesn't get much more "biographical" than this, and virtually anything pre-presidency is some improvement (where there is no sub-article, as here). Space4T: "Is WP at least getting paid for advertising real estate?" Really? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Really. Did you look at the cite, Newsday Classifieds? You can rent the place at Wareham, fully furnished, comes with a life-size cardboard cutout of Trump. There is a sub-article, Residences of Donald Trump, gets an average of 150 to 200 views per day. It has the addresses of both houses. moved to Midland Parkway a few years later, exact date unknown: 1950. Adding the info that Trump's parents were living at 85-15 Wareham Place is a biographical improvement — really? This won't be the next Lincoln's birthplace historical monument. Trump's birthplace is Jamaica Hospital, and somehow I can't picture them even affixing a plaque honoring the event. The house on Wareham Place made its way into the bio in 2016, wrongly claiming that Trump lived there until Junior High. The cite for this false claim, this NYT article, does not verify it; it says he grew up in the mansion on Midland Parkway. No idea why the place where Trump's parents lived from 1940 to 1950 (with Trump from 1946 until 1950) even has a WP page; seems undue to me. There's a long list of biographical stuff that we cut due to size. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

House flipping 1, house flipping 2, Trump Media stock house flipping 2.5 Quote: Mr. Trump’s childhood home was briefly available for rent on Airbnb, and a plaque memorialized his conception. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ylee: Your reinsertion of the challenged bold edit violated BRD restrictions in effect on this page (see the banner "Warning: active arbitration remedies", above). Please self-revert.
Status quo ante:

Donald John Trump was born on June 14, 1946, at Jamaica Hospital in Queens, New York City,[1] the fourth child of Fred Trump and Mary Anne MacLeod Trump. Trump grew up with older siblings Maryanne, Fred Jr., and Elizabeth and younger brother Robert in the Jamaica Estates neighborhood of Queens, and attended the private Kew-Forest School from kindergarten through seventh grade.[2][3][4] Trump.

Your original edit, addition in bold:

Donald John Trump was born on June 14, 1946, at Jamaica Hospital in Queens, New York City,[1] the fourth child of Fred Trump and Mary Anne MacLeod Trump. Trump grew up with older siblings Maryanne, Fred Jr., and Elizabeth and younger brother Robert at 85-15 Wareham Place in the Jamaica Estates neighborhood of Queens, and attended the private Kew-Forest School from kindergarten through seventh grade.[2][3][4][5]

Current edit:

Donald John Trump was born on June 14, 1946, at Jamaica Hospital in Queens, New York City,[1] the fourth child of Fred Trump and Mary Anne MacLeod Trump, living at 85-15 Wareham Place in Jamaica Estates, Queens, New York. Trump grew up with older siblings Maryanne, Fred Jr., and Elizabeth and younger brother Robert, and attended the private Kew-Forest School from kindergarten through seventh grade.[2][3][4][5]

I challenged the insertion of the content, i.e., the address, both as an undue detail and because it is incorrect - he lived in the mansion much longer than in the Tudor. The current iteration is even worse, IMO, adding his parents' address at the time he was born. I fail to see the significance of either. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Interesting tidbit I would not be aware of if it wasn't in the article for a few hours..... now lost to history because someone doesn't like a link. Moxy🍁 13:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Many interesting tidbits were lost to history because reasons. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering if they all involve the stewards of this article? Moxy🍁 17:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Again? Kind of funny, 'though. I'm usually one of the "stewards" who catch flak for opposing the removal of details. Can't win for losing. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think someone's parents address when they were born belongs in articles unless there is something significant about the address, for example if his parents had lived in Gracie Mansion or Blenheim Palace. TFD (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

+1. Is it really that important when we are already at the point of trying to save space? QuicoleJR (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for violating BRD; I thought that opening a Talk thread would be sufficient compliance for the rule (which I knew applies to the article) for something relatively innocuous as this. I think that the address of Trump's family at the time of his birth is relevant; Trump lived there until the age of four, so it's not like a temporary residency in which his family happened to be on vacation in that week or something, either. I agree that not every home he lived in while growing up is relevant here, or (say) the addresses of his dorms at Fordham and Wharton; residences of Donald Trump, as noted, exists. Trump Tower does appear in this article; it is notable both on its own and as Trump's primary residence for decades. While not quite on that level, I submit that the closest thing to his birthplace is also relevant here.

As for "real estate advertisement", I echo Mandruss (talk · contribs)'s incredulity at the accusation. Since when is Newsday not a RS? I didn't create the Wikipedia article on 85-15 Wareham, so some degree of notability has already been established. Ylee (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

can we remove this?

Until 2018, the media rarely referred to Trump's falsehoods as lies, including when he repeated demonstrably false statements.

This has more to do with the media than Trump "the man" or whatever the standard is for inclusion here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 06:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Referring to Donald Trump#False or misleading statements: I believe the standard was that Trump the man got a pass from the media for a long time. Quoting the AP source: President Donald Trump has been accused of dishonesty, spreading falsehoods, misrepresenting facts, distorting news, passing on inaccuracies and being loose with the truth. But does he lie? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah this seems like a consensus 22 vio. Riposte97 (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not. We're not calling Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia voice. The question is whether the media referring to Trump's falsehoods as lies is a viewpoint in proportion to its prominence in reliable sources. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Are these "/current consensus" pages even real?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Are these "/current consensus" pages even real?. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)