Talk:Donald Trump

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Pstein92.

Page views for this article over the last 30 days
Detailed traffic statistics

Open RfCs and surveys

• None

Current consensus

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

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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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. 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)

11. Superseded by #17

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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

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

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

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

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

17. Superseded by #50

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

18. Superseded by #63

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

19. Obsolete

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

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

21. Superseded by #39

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

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

23. Superseded by #52

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

24. Superseded by #30

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35. Superseded by #49

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

36. Superseded by #39

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

45. Superseded by #48

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump Tower image

The image of Trump Tower in the article has very nasty artefacts around the edges of the buildings. Is there a better one that could be used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.155.196 (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for the notice. — JFG ^talk 03:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Context/grammatical error

Can someone change this context/grammatical error? "Before entering politics he was a businessman and television personality." to "However, before entering politics he was a businessman and television personality.". Also if you're wondering why I directly edited this its because I can't find the damn post button. NitrocideWP (talk) 07:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a grammar error in the current prose, much less one that would be corrected by your suggestion. Besides, adding "however" might be construed as editorializing, which is not encyclopedic. Finally, there is a dedicated thread and an open survey above, if you wish to discuss the lead sentence further. — JFG ^talk 09:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 April 2017

205.122.73.147 (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done no request made --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

1987 and 2012

As discussed previously, Trump's thoughts about running for POTUS in 2012 are not significant enough for the lead, though that certainly can go later in the article. He actually ran in 2000, which is why that has been included in the lead but 2012 hasn't been. As far as 1987 is concerned, that was his first big foray into politics, with ads placed nationwide, but he didn't specifically say he was aiming for POTUS; a spokesperson said: "There is absolutely no plan to run for mayor, governor or United States senator. He will not comment about the Presidency." Regarding birther stuff in the lead, that's been discussed here before,[1] with the conclusion being that it ought to go in the article body (where there is more room) but not in the lead. If it does go in the lead, then I think that would have to include the fact that Obama did ultimately release the info, and the fact that Trump did ultimately acknowledge his eligibility, but then it would be undue weight for the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

So... you have started this thread to suggest we change... nothing? Not sure what the point of this is. For what it's worth, the only thing you talk about that I think is lede-worthy is the whole "birther" issue (and I'm fine leaving it out), since he arguably wouldn't have had a shot at the presidency had he not raised his profile with that pile of bullshit. I also disagree that we would need to mention that Obama released his certificate, or that Trump reluctantly acknowledged Obama's eligibility because neither of those facts have anything to do with Trump's rise to power. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I started this thread for an actual reason. 😲 Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

My apologies. I was not aware of that edit. My bad. I agree with your reversion, although I think an argument could be made for including the birther stuff. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing on transfer to Wharton

Two sources are currently cited for this. One won't show up for me despite apparently having been checked a few weeks ago, and the other ... well, we cite it as saying he chose to go there for the real estate department, and while it does say that, that's not really what the source is saying. I'm wondering if a source can be reliable enough for a relatively innocuous statement like "Trump wanted to study real estate" but we can cherry-pick that relatively innocuous statement when what the source is actually saying is "Trump wanted to study real estate, but, concerned that he, like his father, would not be accepted to Wharton straight-off, spent two years studying elsewhere before transferring in with the help of a family friend in Wharton's admissions office". If the full detail would be insufficiently-sourced for BLP purposes, I don't think we should be citing this source at all, as it looks like we are creatively interpreting what the source says by neglecting the actual point the author was making. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The links in both footnotes work for me, but I have edited the Boston Globe footnote to include an archived version as well. Here is what the text currently looks like:

In August 1964, Trump entered Fordham University. After two years at Fordham, he transferred to the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, because it offered one of the few real estate studies departments in United States academia at the time.[1][2]

The two footnotes are as follows:

[1] Blair, Gwenda. Donald Trump: Master Apprentice, p. 16 (Simon & Schuster, 2005). ISBN 978-0-7432-7510-1.
[2] Viser, Matt. "Even in college, Donald Trump was brash", Boston Globe (August 28, 2015). Archived here.

Here's what the Globe says about it:

Trump said in the interview that it was his having spent so much time away from home that led him not to apply to Wharton as a freshman. Instead, he spent his first two college years living at home in Queens and commuting to Fordham. "I had very good marks. And I was a good student generally speaking," Trump said. "But I wanted to be home for a couple of years because I was away for five years. So I wanted to spend time home, get to know my family — when you’re away, you’re away right?" After two years at Fordham, "I got in quickly and easily" to the Wharton undergraduate program, Trump said. "And it’s one of the hardest schools to get into in the country — always has been." Around the time Trump was admitted, there were 8,000 candidates vying for 1,700 spots in the freshman class, according to school records. The process could be more difficult for transfer students like Trump. Tuition was $1,770 for the academic year.

Here's what Blair says:

What he cared about was that Wharton had one of the few real estate departments in American academia. His older brother had identified the school as the top choice for Fred’s successor, but had been unable to gain admission. Heeding Freddy’s example, he had not applied to Wharton right off. Instead, he earned two years’ worth of respectable grades at Fordham, had an interview with a friendly Wharton admissions officer who was one of Freddy’s old high school classmates, and then transferred into the real estate department.

We need to properly distinguish between the father and brother; Fred was the father, Freddy was the brother. It was the brother who couldn't get into Wharton. Blair says Donald went to Fordham to build up a good academic record for transfer purposes, whereas the Globe indicates he also wanted to get to know his family after five years at boarding school. Maybe both reasons are correct, but I don't think we have to get into detail about it. The point is that he chose Wharton because it had a good real estate program, which seems well-sourced. And Blair says the admissions officer was merely a classmate of his brother (as distinguished from a family friend who knew Donald's father), and that the admissions officer was "friendly" as distinguished from "helpful" or "corrupt" or "biased", so I don't think we're cherry-picking here. The implication is that Donald Trump got good grades at Fordham...good enough to legitimately get into Wharton. I could try and get further sourcing on this, but it doesn't seem necessary. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

What Freddy Jr did is not relevant here. This is Donald Trump's article. And no, we don't really need to make such a distinction since Donald Trump's name is Donald Trump, not Fred Trump or Freddy Trump, Jr. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the Blair source (the only one I could access, for whatever reason). Blair refers to both "Fred" (our subject's father) and "Freddy" (which, out of context, I assumed was the same person). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The protests section

Currently it looks like this:

Protests

Main article: Protests against Donald Trump

Underneath main can we put:

See also: Timeline of protests against Donald Trump

because it's already at the top of Protests against Donald Trump -- BoredBored (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

As soon as anyone goes to Protests against Donald Trump they'll see a hatnote pointing to Timeline of protests against Donald Trump, so I don't think we need to make the proposed edit. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Why he went to Fordham

We say why he chose to transfer from Fordham to Wharton: the latter had a real estate program. But we don't mention why he initially chose Fordham: because it was close to home and he had been away at boarding school for five years. Why not say so? Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Done.[2] Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: That's not consensus. The rule is, you cannot re-add something that has been challenged without obtaining consensus. It is totally irrelevant why Trump went to Fordham. Only the transfer to Wharton is relevant. Talking to yourself about it on the talk page does not count. This is the editing notice:

"You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article, and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page. An administrator has applied the restriction above to this page. This is pursuant to an arbitration decision which authorised discretionary sanctions for pages relating to all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. If you breach the restriction on this page, you may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned. Please edit carefully.Discretionary sanctions have been used by an administrator to place restrictions on all edits to this page. Discretionary sanctions can also be used against individual editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any Wikipedia policy and editorial norm."

Your edit was challenged and you have not obtained consensus.

SW3 5DL (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Would you care to give a reason why you don't want this BLP to mention why Trump went to Fordham, or to mention that Fordham was located near his home? I assume that you must have some reason in mind, instead of being disruptive and contrarian. If you won't give a reason at this talk page, then maybe the material will be restored at some point by other editors who do offer reasons. Trump was away for five years at boarding school, and wanted to be at home for awhile. Reliable sources find that relevant to his biography. As to me violating discretionary sanctions, no I didn't. You removed a whole bunch of material without explaining why even after I requested explanation, so I restored only a small part of it, not knowing whether that small part is what inspired you to delete the larger chunk. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

You removed a whole bunch of material without explaining why even after I requested explanation. . . No, I did not. You opened this thread, asked a question, and answered it yourself. That's disruptive. You were not here to engage in anything but restoring your edit without getting consensus. That's disruptive. As I already mentioned above, there's no reason to add why he went to Fordham. Eighteen year-old local boy goes to local college. Nobody in America has ever done that, then? This is not relevant. It obviously didn't bother him to be 2.5 hours away from home by train and subway when he transferred to Wharton. Who cares why he picked Fordham. Leaving to go to Wharton is relevant. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I attempted to start a discussion, waited twelve hours, and heard only dead silence. So I guessed that you removed the material because it mentioned film school, and accordingly put back the stuff other than film school in a (vain) attempt to respect your unexplained wishes. I would also mention that many people were born in 1946, it wasn't unusual to be born in 1946, and yet it is so significant that he was born in 1946 that we put it into the lead sentence. Something does not have to be unusual to belong in a proper biography. It's not unusual that the college he picked was close to home, or that he wanted to be at home after five years away. But it's very significant biographically, and it also looks weird to say why he chose Wharton but not say anything about why he went to Fordham. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

That's what the "reply" function is for. You ping someone if you want to get their attention. It does not "look weird" to say why he transferred to Wharton. You do know that the analogy you're making with birthdates in a biography is ridiculous? SW3 5DL (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not ridiculous. What's ridiculous is to purge this BLP of any hint where Fordham is located, any hint that it was close to his home, and any hint that he chose it so he could be with his family after five years away. That's as ridiculous as just about anything I've ever seen at Wikipedia. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Locations of schools

Does anyone have any objection if I revert this edit which removed the locations of his schools? I think it's useful information for people who don't know where the schools were located. That info was in the BLP for quite a while, but was removed by User:Emir of Wikipedia. The edit was three days ago, but I don't think it's too late to revert per WP:BRD. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I do object. I don't think there's a problem with removing the towns. The schools have links if anybody is interested they'll go to the link. That article they find will mention the location. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for not making me talk to myself again! Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: A lot of schools have multiple branches and campuses, so it makes sense to add the city. Also, I think many readers would want to know where the subject went to school -- meaning, which city and which school. I don't think they should have to read a linked article to find out. (See WP:BTW.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, this is what WP:SOB (gotta love that acronym) says: "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so." Things like Fordham and Wharton are comparable to highly technical terms. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I thought it was not necessary as a reader who is interested could just click the link. In the case of the New York Military Academy it was also a bit repetitive writing New York even though the names indicates it is almost certainly in New York. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Emir of Wikipedia, okay, we could omit the town where NYMA was located, but Fordham is a different matter because its name gives no clue. He chose it because it was close to home, and even if a very few readers know that Fordham is in New York State, even fewer readers know it's in NYC. Per WP:SOB, we shouldn't make readers chase links. Would you be okay with saying that Fordham is in NYC? Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, but the version I removed stated the Bronx. I think we need to decide whether we want to state that it is the Bronx borough, NYC, or the state of New York. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC}

The link to Fordham will identify the location of the school. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

User:SW3 5DL, have you looked at WP:SOB? It says: "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so." Do you disagree with WP:SOB? Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The rule does not apply since it is not a 'technical term.' It's the name of a well-known Uni. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Well-known by whom? As a foreigner, I had never heard of Fordham University before reading the Trump article. On the other hand, I knew about Wharton as a prominent business school. — JFG ^talk 20:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I live in Manhattan and didn't know where Fordham was.:) Objective3000 (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Your comment, Thanks for not making me talk to myself again is inappropriate. Nobody here is making you do anything. You are responsible for your behavior here. Not anyone else. In addition, nobody here is obligated to respond within a time frame you set.

1) You persistently violate the 1RR.

2) You persistently exhibit extreme WP:OWN of the article. You become, let's call it 'exercised' whenever anybody reverts or changes one of your edits. You are constantly adding and deleting and moving things on the article without any consent and yet when anybody else does that, you revert them.

3) When we get a consensus for something, you immediately start a new thread to overturn it.

4) Recently, when two discussions were not going your way, you opened RfC's that were designed to sink that consensus, while not resolving anything.

5) It's time the admins did something about this behavior. @Ad Orientem:, @MelanieN:, and any other Admin willing to address this behavior.

SW3 5DL (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

SW3, as you know, I do not function as an admin here; I am WP:INVOLVED and am simply a regular editor. But I will say that If you think you have a case for DS sanctions (if that's what you are trying to say), you need to make that case, using recent diffs, at the AE board. Not just demand on this page that "something be done" without providing any evidence of any use to an uninvolved administrator. Admins are not expected to go hunting through the history to find out what you are talking about.

Anything, speaking as one editor to another: it is unreasonable for you to allow only 12 hours for input before deciding you can go ahead and act on your own. We on Wikipedia are spread out through time zones all over the globe. And we all have lives, so that we are not on Wikipedia all the time. Sometimes we may (hard as it may be to believe) go for a day or two without logging on at all. If nobody responds immediately to what you said, they are not "making you talk to yourself"; they are simply being volunteers who do not spend 24 hours a day here. IMO you should wait at least 48 hours before declaring "nobody has responded so I will go ahead and make my edit." Fair enough? --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

User:MelanieN, I guess it depends whether I ping another editor, whether they're actually editing Wikipedia during the twelve hours, et cetera. I say "et cetera" because there are other factors too, e.g. was the edit that I objected to accompanied by a factually incorrect and cryptic edit summary? Such as this one which claimed that "nothing" was being removed. Generally speaking, I haven't run out of patience after 12 hours often here, and can't remember the last time. I've been trying lately to overhaul this BLP so it will have a shot at GA, which is very laborious given the sorry state this BLP has been in since he won the GOP nomination. If I had to wait 12 hours between each of my recent edits, we'd be well into the year 2018 right now, so I don't want to give any other editor an ability to bog things down like that. Have you nothing to say about the other editor's incorrect and cryptic edit summary which erroneously claimed to be removing "nothing"?[3] Anyway, it looks like you have suggested that that other editor might have better success against me by putting together a DS case, so maybe this discussion will soon be moot. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I did not suggest that they file a case (thanks for revising that). I said IF that's what SW3 has in mind, that's how they have to do it. Not simply demand at an article talk page that "something be done". --MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, the latter approach is certainly easier for me. 🙂 Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• SW3 5DL Thanks for the ping but like Melanie I have recently edited the article. So unless we are talking about naked vandalism or some other specie of obviously disruptive editing I pretty much am just another editor on here. If I can manage to get through a month or two without doing any editing on the article I might be able to call myself uninvolved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
• @Ad Orientem and MelanieN: Thanks for the explanations from both of you. While you cannot block him, at least as editors, you can comment on his behaviors when you see them, or another editor draws your attention to them. You can also clearly see he dominates the editing here and attempts to block any editor from adding/deleting as they see fit. There is no regard for others, it's always somebody else's fault, and he never seems to modulate his behavior when it is pointed out to him. That's disruption. When you see it, please do something about it. Call him on it, or call another Admin to address it. As you've noted, we are volunteers here. We deserve some consideration, too. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I hope they will do so with respect to me, and also with respect to you. I also suggest that if you want to make a revert on a tumultuous high-profile BLP like this one without making any talk page comment beforehand, then you ought to do so only if willing to wait around for at least ten minutes to participate in any WP:BRD discussion that is started, instead of leaving for 12 hours or more. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

You've totally failed to take in what MelanieN has said. I rest my case. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we should give addresses for well-known schools. It's more important anyway that Fordham and Wharton are among the most prestigious schools in the U.S. than that they are respectively in the Bronx and Philadelphia, yet that is not mentioned. Articles are written for people who have general knowledge and would have heard of these two schools. If they have not, then they can click the links. TFD (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Fordham is well known. The link takes care of any questions. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I doubt any of ua are authorities on whether Fordham is "prestigious" or "well known". The general rule would be that readers should have to click the Fordham University link if and only if they're interested in the subject of that article (the school) rather than this article (Trump and his whereabouts). See "wiki-hole" ("Going to Wikipedia to look up a simple piece of information, and ending up spending several hours reading about things you didn't know existed"). --00:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 April 2017

Section: Economy and trade

Photo caption: Trump speaking to automobile workers in Michigan in March 2017 219.79.97.124 (talk) 09:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done — IVORK _Discuss 09:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed correction to heading levels

I would like to increase the heading level of three sections that seem to be buried by "TOC limit|3". Business bankruptcies, Ties to Russia, and Personal taxes are the only fourth level headings in the entire biography (until we reach his political efforts where I agree that fourth level and below might be useful). Because editing this article is so contentious I will wait until at least tomorrow to see if there are any objections. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's what it would look like with a longer TOC. Looks unwieldy to me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

You're right. The alternative is to get rid of the TOC limit, which is a good idea. It isn't the TOC that's unwieldy, it is Wikipedia editors who have pack-ratted every detail of this man's life into a few dozen articles. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, that happens with presidential nominees and presidents. There are tons of Hillary articles, McCain articles, etc. I've been trying lately to overhaul this article, but there's a long way to go, and maybe when the overhaul is done the structure will look better to you. I've started at the top and am working my way down. If a fourth-level subheader is at the top of a very short subsubsubsection, maybe the subheader ought to be removed. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

We should place sections and subsections as logically as possible. The current TOC limit at level 3 is appropriate given the length of the article and the number of sections; this shouldn't be changed because we want to emphasize a particular "buried" subsection. if a level-4 subsection deserves a more prominent placement as a level-3 section, this case can be made independently of where the TOC limit stands. Note that on the Wikipedia mobile apps, the TOC limit does not apply: every TOC item is reachable from the article menu. — JFG ^talk 16:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• I support SusanLesch' proposal to eliminate the TOC limit. I don't find it unwieldy at all. Also, "Ties to Russia" should not be a subsection of "Hotels beyond New York".- MrX 17:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

  I changed that last header to "Further projects beyond New York". Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree with MrX about the Ties to Russia should not be a subsection. The problem with the TOC's is that there is too much in this article that is not relevant here and should be moved to the subarticles. Too much is being "rat-packed' into the article. A lot of it is verbose additions that add nothing but length to the article. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I would have no objection to removing the subheader "Ties to Russia" so the material is simply further content in the section now titled "Further projects beyond New York". Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG:, my phone does not display every item in a TOC. Can you please provide a source for that idea? On Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections where I removed the TOC limit, my phone only displays level two headings (the title being level one). -SusanLesch (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: Are you using a phone browser such as Safari or Chrome, or the Wikipedia app? I was talking about the latter. — JFG ^talk 21:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: you're right I didn't have the app yet. Now using the app (that 10 million people downloaded) I don't get any TOC at all. That's in both this article with a TOC limit and in the other one without a limit. So can you please point me to some documentation to support your view that TOCs must be limited to serve mobile users? -SusanLesch (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Susan, how about if I remove the subheader "Ties to Russia" so the material is simply further content in the section now titled "Further projects beyond New York"? Then the only fourth-level subheader will be in the presidency section, and you or I could then trim that section while getting rid of the fourth-level subheaders there too. Sounds good? Then we remove the TOC limit. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Anythingyouwant. Three fourth level headers are bothering me. Because there is no way to find this information: Business bankruptcies, Ties to Russia, and Personal taxes. (Just by the way, removing the TOC limit was not my idea.) All it would take is removing an equal sign on each side of three lines and we'd be done. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I already took care of two of those three, in a different way. Okay? Regarding the last one, I would prefer to do the same sort of thing, i.e. remove the subheader "Ties to Russia" so the material is simply further content in the section now titled "Further projects beyond New York". Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I've promoted the 'Ties to Russia' section to level 3. A section that discusses a subject notable enough for its own article should not be at level 4. I've combined the New York real estate sections into one section. (No more "Further buildings"). The loose change can go in the section 'Other real estate activities'.- MrX 21:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I support that. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Ditto, I like this version of the TOC. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@MrX and SusanLesch: I oppose this edit [4]. It reverts the edit MrX made which has support here. There does not appear to be enough discussion here, or in the other thread, to turn this into Russian interference in the election. These seem to be two separate issues. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

See the pertinent talk page section below, where I and other editors are against having "Russia ties" as a standalone section. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Bankruptcy header

The header currently says "Bankruptcies and other legal affairs". I suggest prefacing with the word "Business" because otherwise it sounds like he personally went bankrupt multiple times, when actually he never did. It's true that we're talking about a subheader under the "Real estate business" header, but that is not dispositive, as the section discusses lots of personal things including his personal wealth resulting from his business, and readers will assume he had personal bankruptcies as a result of his business. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to emphasize this distinction in the section header. The prose already says: Trump has never filed for personal bankruptcy, but his hotel and casino businesses have been declared bankrupt six times between 1991 and 2009. However, the newly-combined section would more appropriately be titled "Legal affairs and bankruptcies", because the corresponding {{main article}} is called Legal affairs of Donald Trump, of which bankruptcies are but a subset. — JFG ^talk 22:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

A bankruptcy is a legal affair, which is why bankruptcies are covered in Legal affairs of Donald Trump. So a heading that treats them as separate things is incongruous. And just because the misleading header is clarified within the section is not very helpful, because many people skim the headers without reading all the section contents. How about "Legal affairs including business bankruptcies"? Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, as bankruptcies are indeed part of legal affairs, perhaps just "Legal affairs" would do then? Seriously, we're saying the same thing, but bankruptcies of the Trump casinos are well-known, so it would beg invite questions if that word was not in the section headers. I still see no need to add the "business" qualifier, but let's see what other editors think. — JFG ^talk 22:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The concept of Begging the question is unfortunately very ambiguous nowadays, so I avoid the term. According to the lead of the Wikipedia article, "Many consider these usages incorrect in contexts that demand strict adherence to the technical definition." I think you mean "invite questions" when you say "beg questions". And I would agree, "bankruptcies" should be in the header. So, I don't understand the problem with "Legal affairs including business bankruptcies". Do you agree that many people skim through the headers without necessarily reading the contents of the sections? For those people, I'd like the header to be clear that Trump didn't go bankrupt. Some of his businesses did. What's the harm? Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

You're right about "begging the question"; I never quite understand what people mean when saying that. I did mean "would invite questions" and have amended my comment accordingly.

The header you suggest is simply too long compared to all others. Why not "Legal affairs including business bankruptcies, sexual misconduct allegations, casino litigants and breaches of contracts"? — JFG ^talk 23:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

"Legal affairs including business bankruptcies" is 45 characters. In the Hillary Clinton article (a featured article), we have the header "Marriage, family, law career, and First Lady of Arkansas" which is 56 characters. So it's not a particularly long header. I am flexible here; we can just call the section "Legal affairs" or (my preference) "Legal affairs including casino bankruptcies" (which is only 43 characters). But I really am adamantly against putting "bankruptcies" in the header without any qualifier because I think it's misleading to readers who are merely scanning the headers without reading all the contents. That's a lot of readers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh my! If you're going to cite WP:OTHERCRAP then at least don't pick one of the most awful coatrack headers of all Wikipedia! I'd split that into "Marriage and family", "Law career" and "First Lady of Arkansas". Irrelevant here. — JFG ^talk 00:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I honestly don't know how to discuss this with you. The John McCain article is also featured, and has a header "Commanding officer, liaison to Senate, and second marriage" which is also much longer than the one we're discussing. You haven't denied that many readers will read the headers of this BLP without reading every section fully, and you haven't denied that many readers who only read this header will assume that Trump went bankrupt, and you haven't denied that only his businesses went bankrupt rather than him going bankrupt. So this just seems like the usual Wikipedia gabfest where editors don't seem to be getting anywhere. Don't you see that your concern (slight verbosity in a header) pales in comparison to my concern (misleading readers and disparaging a BLP subject)? Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Adding "Business" is unnecessary disambiguation since Trump has not had any personal bankruptcies.- MrX 23:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

No one said it's needed for disambiguation. Many people will assume that the bare word "bankruptcies" in a BLP refers to personal bankruptcies, which it does not in this instance. So it's necessary clarity, not necessary disambiguation. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Merging "Ties to Russia" with "Other real estate activities" and rename merged section

The section now titled "Other real estate activities" is very short and mainly deals with international stuff, so I think it should be merged with the "Ties to Russia" section (maybe call the merged section "Expansion worldwide"). It's true that there's a separate Wikipedia article about his business in Russia, but there are many Trump-related wikilinks already in this BLP without corresponding headers or subheaders. Note that there is already a subsection further down titled "Foreign interference in election" which is appropriate and is the main place for discussing Russia investigations and the like. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "International expansion" sounds better, and the Russian bit can be merged there, as it talks only of his (failed) real estate projects in that country. His alleged collusion with Russia during the election campaign is covered elsewhere in the article. — JFG ^talk 22:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

No, ties to Russia explains a long history of Trump's work in Russia. That is of interest to people who might inquire about collusion. As I recall, that section ended with a statement that says Trump has no business in Russia as of 2017. Kindly leave the word Russia in the TOC. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

If you think "Russia" ought to explicitly be in the table of contents, let's change "Foreign interference in election" to "Russian interference in election". Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I am out of sync. Yes, I like your idea -- put Russian interference in election in if that is possible. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, done. Russia remains in the TOC, but not twice. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

What? Where's the consensus? You're ignoring the discussion above. Ties to Russia is not the same as Russian interference in the election. [5]. Ties to Russia should be put back as MrX had it. That has support. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I reverted myself, since you object. No one ever said or implied that ties to Russia is the same as Russian interference in the election, but I suppose that I must respect your objections anyway. After all, three editors in this section seem to agree, and you disagree, so we'll do it your way for now. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, 'Ties to Russia' (or 'Activities in Russia') have an entire article. It's very noteworthy. Why are you trying to make the section as hard to find as possible?- MrX 23:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The Russia matter that is most noteworthy is purported Russian interference in the election, and of these two sections that is the section that most appropriately has "Russia" in the heading. Are you trying to make that section hard to find? Please try some more WP:AGF. As I said above, the section now titled "Other real estate activities" is very short and mainly deals with international stuff, so I think it should be merged with the "Ties to Russia" section (maybe call the merged section "Expansion worldwide"). It's true that there's a separate Wikipedia article about his business in Russia, but there are many Trump-related wikilinks already in this BLP without corresponding headers or subheaders. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Obviously they should both have Russia in the heading. In fact, why do we have "Foreign interference in election" and not "Russian interference in election"? That's just bizarre!- MrX 23:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I imagine that some editors would like to have Russia in all the headers. But the fact is that the Russia business ties are notable only because of the alleged interference in the election, and the Russia business ties were not any more notable than the Uruguay business ties until the election came along. Ths article attempts to be chronological, and chronologically the business ties to Russia were not notable until we get further along in the chronology than the real estate career. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: The reason we have "Foreign interference" instead of "Russian interference" is because of this thread which discussed Ukrainian interference against Trump, e.g. by leaking data about payments to Paul Manafort. — JFG ^talk 00:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: The Ukraine role far less noteworthy that the Russian interference. The section should not be constructed in such a was as to lead readers to assume they are of similar magnitude or importance.- MrX 00:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we need more editors commenting and editing here to stop this cabal editing that blocks all new ideas. I see no reason why Russia can't be mentioned twice in the TOC for two different topics. He has had business in Russia so let's put that in there with a proper heading, and there is apparently evidence to show Russian interference in the election, so lets put that in there, too. What's the issue with that? We aren't allowed to trim away the bulky 'side ventures' but mentioning Russia twice is twice too often? That makes no sense.SW3 5DL (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it's once too often, and tomorrow I intend to partially revert MrX's restructuring project, so that "Ties to Russia" remains a fourth-level subheader as it has been for months, until we get consensus on what to do. I don't want any fourth level subeaders in this article, but the third-level ones ought to be reasonable. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

No need to be so obstinate and threaten more aggressive editing. How about you convince us that your way is better? Why do think Trump's business dealings in Russia are so unimportant that you would demote it to lesser status than "Professional wrestling appearances"?- MrX 00:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: please take note of discussion. I agree with @MrX:, Anything. You're response here is inappropriate. You don't own this article and other editors are allowed to insert material into this article. Saying we cannot mention Russia twice makes no sense. There are two separate issues involving Russia. They should both be mentioned. It's all over RS. You can't blend the two and hide them under a header that doesn't reference them. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Very funny User:MrX. You change longstanding content, and you object to me restoring a small part until we reach consensus, and yet I'm being aggressive and obstinate? Please. Just because something doesn't have a dedicated header doesn't mean it's unimportant. Trump built "Trump Tower", and he ran "The Trump Organization", both of which are very significant aspects of his life, and yet neither of those terms appear in headers or subheaders. I support having "Russia" in one of our subheaders, but think two is overkill, especially since the primary notability of Russia is in the context of the election. I've not suggested to remove any content, just to have Russia in one header instead of two. Incidentally, I have overhauled some stuff in the "Side ventures" section, but have not overhauled the wrestling part, and it may well be that that section can be shrunk and/or combined with another section. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

There are two separate issues with Russia Yes, we can mention both issues with headers. You should not revert MrX's edit. Let it stand. Let's get other editors here to comment. It' cannot be just you making decisions here. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Anything, please see the note I have left on your talk page. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Can we mention Russia twice in the TOC? One subject is Trump's Ties to Russia, while the other subject is Russian interference in the election. Please indicate Support or Oppose. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support. They are two separate issues that are notable in the RS and should have two sections with TOC headers. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

1RR question

(Background: This discussion started on my talk page and was moved here at my request. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC))

With the 1RR on DT, does that mean that if you revise content, and that gets reverted, and you then come back and revise the same content again less than 24 hours later, is that a 1RR violation? SW3 5DL (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think merely revising content is necessarily a revert if it hasn't been the subject of any recent discussion or editing. I can get some links on that if you would like. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm actually here looking for Ad Orientem's opinion. Revision is often the same as a revert. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

1RR means that you don't reinsert material or edits that have been challenged by reversion. If the edit in question is substantially the same as one that was reverted then you are violating 1RR. I would also point out that people should be seeking talk page consensus before making major changes to the article. Discretionary Sanctions is not limited to 1RR. The bottom line is that we need to show respect for other editors and the broader community when editing articles about controversial figures. If someone is habitually not doing that then they can be sanctioned. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

{e/c] I'm not all that familiar with the sanctioning on ArbCom pages. but these edits seem to me to be violating 1RR imposed on DT, and there are more like them.

• This edit substantially revised content here at 02:38, 21 April 2017

• It was reverted here at 02:46, 21 April 2017

• Then revised again by the same editor here at 14:54, 21 April 2017

SW3 5DL (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The edit at 02:38 was not a revert that anyone should be blocked for, if indeed it was technically a revert, because that material had not recently been the subject of any discussion or editing, so there was not remotely anything like a revert-war going on (also note that the edit of 02:38 basically added info rather than removing any info). Moreover, FYI, there was a lot of discussion here about what constitutes a revert, and the purported difference between a "revert" and a "revert that you should be blocked for". As far as editing the Trump article recently, I've been bold and substantially upgraded the article recently. I would like to keep going to make it ready to be a "good article". If there is consensus that I have not been doing this properly, then I'll go away from it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

That is a conversation that needs to be held on the article talk page. IMO this discussion should be moved there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay by me, thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Will you be commenting on the article talk page? SW3 5DL (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Possibly if I have time. I'm in the middle of some stuff right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

.Has he violated the 1RR? It appears to me he has, and he has done this many times before. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

If the edit at 02:38 was a revert subject to 1RR then so was this. Right SW3? Anyway, please move this discussion per request above. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: This section was originally posted on Ad Orientem's talk page. Ad Orientem wanted it moved here.

SW3 5DL (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

User:SW3 5DL, do you think this edit of mine might have been a revert? Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you violated 1RR here:

• This edit substantially revised content here at 02:38, 21 April 2017

• It was reverted here at 02:46, 21 April 2017

• Then revised again by the same editor here at 14:54, 21 April 2017

SW3 5DL (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I know, you already said all of that above. It's not what I'm asking you. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Since my opinion has been requested, I think that calling the linked edits a 1RR violation is a stretch. I am INVOLVED by virtue of having recently edited this article, and thus am merely offering my opinion as an experienced editor. That said this looks like well intentioned, albeit perhaps overly assertive editing. If I were acting as an admin I would certainly not issue a block on the basis of what I've seen here. But I do think that everybody needs to remember that the subject of this article is controversial. There have been talk page arguments over the most trivial edits. Everybody needs to remember that there are a lot of cooks in this kitchen and editing should be approached with that in mind. Yes, there is WP:BOLD, but there is also WP:CONSENSUS. The latter always trumps (pun intended) the former. I am not seeing any malicious editing here. But an argument could be made that there has been insufficient consideration given to the opinions of other editors. We should all try to remember that we are on the same team here and edit accordingly. So let's try to assume good faith, and show a reasonable level of respect for the other members of the team and their view of what should go into the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. And I agree that there is insufficient consideration given to the opinions of others, especially when edits are constantly reverted and/or challenged. And I still think it's a violation. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

You are certainly free to disagree with me. I'm just one person, but you asked for my opinion and I've given it. 1RR does not mean an editor has to ask permission before making any edits. And yes, we all need to show some consideration for the other editors working on the article. And that works two ways. Routinely reverting someone's edits can be seen as less than constructive unless there are good reasons. But if you want to pursue this ANEW is this way. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that 1RR means we have to ask permission before making any edits. About routinely reverting someone's edits, I can show you diffs of almost every edit I've made has been reverted by Anythingyouwant or changed, or moved. He dogs my edits. I worked on several sections when we were reducing the size of the article, and he came back and changed every edit I made. But when anybody reverts or changes his edits, he has a fit on the talk page. His comments get hostile, very aggressive. When I switched around the ancestry and family sections, I removed 'ancestry' since it seem silly to separate it from his family. Anythingyouwant had a meltdown on the talk page about it. Very aggressive, hostile comments. JFG rolled back all of my edits for that night without any regard to separating out what they were objecting to. Just all of them. They were later restored, but this is the kind of thing that shows lack of regard for other editors, and WP:OWN, which needs to be addressed. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The best I can do is strongly encourage everybody to step back, take a deep breath and try to conduct ourselves in a collegial manner. It doesn't help when we don't assume good faith and or fail to show respect for everybody else who is working on this article. And that applies to all of us. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree and I'm not trying to put you on the spot. But we need an admin to start moderating this talk page and article so this ownership issue and the constant disruption can be resolved. Nobody else is doing the things to this page that he does. Nobody else is subverting a gathering consensus with go no where RfC's. Right now he's threatening to partially revert MrX's edit. Who is he to decide that? The last I checked he's just one ivote. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

You are being very unfair, SW3. Both JFG and Susan expressed support above for combining "Ties to Russia" with "Other real estate activities", and prior to MrX's edits the former material was a subsection under the latter. I welcome Ad Orientem's opinion about this if he feels like giving it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Propose moving off 'side ventures'

I think it's time to move off 'side ventures' to the relevant sub-articles and would like input from others. Also, if there are other sections that could be reduced and moved, please mention them. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Judging from the discussion above, it seems like there is more sentiment to now trim the presidency section, so that we don't need any fourth-level headers anymore. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Those side ventures were a significant part of his life: yes to trimming the prose, no to forking them out completely. Details are already covered in Business career of Donald Trump, so a dedicated fork is not needed (although that article could well shed some fat too). The areas that need most trimming are the campaign stories, political positions and "first 100 days", all covered extensively in several daughter articles. — JFG ^talk 23:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

They aren't really key features of his life. They seem more like extending his brand. This should be moved off with a paragraph or two left in place. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I would disagree with reducing the "Side ventures" that much. On the other hand, the material in the presidency section is ridiculously over-detailed at this point. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)