Talk:Donald Trump

Highlighted open discussions

• #Trim second paragraph in lead

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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)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

Trim second paragraph in lead

The lead section currently comprises an intro sentence briefly defining the subject and three paragraphs describing his life: the first on Trump's early life and business career, the second on his accession to the presidency, and the third about his actions as U.S. President. Now that we are well into the third year of his first term, I believe that the second paragraph has reached undue proportions compared to the rest of the biography. I would therefore suggest to trim it thus.

Current version

Trump entered the 2016 presidential race as a Republican and defeated sixteen opponents in the primaries. His campaign received extensive free media coverage. Commentators described his political positions as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. 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. Trump was elected president in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to have won the election despite having lost the popular vote. His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. Many of his comments and actions have been perceived as racially charged or racist.

Proposed trim

Trump entered the 2016 presidential race as a Republican and defeated sixteen opponents in the primaries. Commentators described his political positions as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. He was elected president in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, although he lost the popular vote. Trump became the first U.S. president without prior military or government service. His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. He made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. Many of his comments and actions have been perceived as racially charged or racist.

Rationale to keep or remove each sentence

• Keep Trump entered the 2016 presidential race as a Republican and defeated sixteen opponents in the primaries. This was the widest field of Republican candidates ever, and Trump used to be a Democrat. He encountered perhaps more opposition from within the Republican party as from the Democratic candidates. Even after he became the nominee, the Never Trump movement continued until and beyond election day.
• Remove His campaign received extensive free media coverage. All presidential campaigns do, so what was exceptional this time? On the one hand, the media gave him a lot of airtime, on the other hand most of their coverage was negative. There's not much to conclude in terms of unusual influence of "free media" on voters.
• Keep Commentators described his political positions as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. That sounds like a fair and concise summary of his "MAGA" campaign platform.
• Keep He made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. That's a notable characteristic of his campaign rhetoric, of his prior life story touting "truthful hyperbole", and of his ongoing vagaries with the truth. Because it does not apply to the campaign only, I moved this to the end of the paragraph, before the sentence on racially-charged statements.
• Remove The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. That's too much detail for the lead, and is partly opinion. The previous sentence says enough about false statements; keep details for article body.
• Keep He was elected president in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. That's the meat of the paragraph.
• Remove Trump became the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency. That's just irrelevant trivia.
• Keep He became the first U.S. president without prior military or government service. That sounds more relevant than his age or his wealth.
• Replace and the fifth to have won the election despite having lost the popular vote by although he lost the popular vote after we mention his victory against Clinton. Keep the footnote that explains the Electoral College and mentions that this situation has occurred five times.
• Keep His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. That's a fact, and we have strong consensus to mention it.
• Keep Many of his comments and actions have been perceived as racially charged or racist. Keep per recent RfC.

Comments welcome. — JFG ^talk 22:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with the changes except for the removal of "The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics.", which I am strongly opposed to. This wording enjoys hard-won consensus. It is an important qualifier to the previous sentence.- MrX 🖋 23:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the sentences - 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. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist. First - many politicians make misleading statements, but that is not placed in the article, much less in the opening paragraph. Second, the fact that the statements have been documented by fact-checkers is hardly relevant - fact checkers can and do routinely tear apart speeches to characterize the slightest misstep as a lie. Remember President Obama saying he had visited 57 States? Or if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor? But the opening paragraph of Obama's article does not state that he has made many false statements, and it shouldn't. Third, most fact check web sites are notoriously liberal, and are not objective when determining if a conservative has made a false or misleading statement. Fourth - the sentence about many of his comments being characterized as racist is not even cited, but merely mentioned as an established fact, which it certainly is not. For all these reasons these sentences need to be removed. JohnTopShelf (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I strongly oppose removal of "Trump became the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency." These are relevant and important items. I disagree that they are "irrelevant trivia." The Reagan article, for comparison, notes in the lead section that "Reagan was the oldest person to have been elected to a first-term..."; the JFK article states "at age 43, he became the second-youngest man to serve as president (after Theodore Roosevelt), the youngest man to be elected as U.S. president"; the T. Roosevelt article says that he "remains the youngest person to become President of the United States"; the Lincoln article states that Lincoln "grew up on the frontier in a poor family." Neutrality^talk 02:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I largely agree with JFG, except for what Neutrality has expressed. Trump's wealth was a huge point of discussion in the election -- whether it was a pro or a con depended on who you were talking to, but it was constantly talked about either way. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with each and every deletion. I think JFG has done a nice job here separating the most significant aspects from the less significant aspects. I think MrX's concern can be addressed by expanding the "false or misleading sentence"; the "fact-checkers" sentence is a bit much and just poorly written. Regarding the "oldest and wealthiest" sentence, that's absolutely important, but my understanding (as an avid news reader) is that, regardless of how we feel about it, it's received significantly less RS coverage than the other content in the paragraph. R2 (bleep) 19:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Same as MrX. Consensus has weight and it should take a lot to change one, particularly a recent one. By "a lot" I mean considerably more than a majority in this discussion, which is about far more than that sentence. I fail to see how the sentence is "just poorly written", and I don't think that's just because I wrote it. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I had no idea who had drafted that sentence when I wrote that. Both clauses could be greatly improved.

• The statements have been documented by fact-checkers This is extremely milquetoast... Trump's false statements have been documented by fact checkers... So what? Every prominent politician's false statements have documented by fact checkers. This clause says more about fact checkers (and arguably about the political climate that led to the rise of fact checkers) rather than about Trump himself.
• and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. Just difficult to understand, because "the phenomenon" is so vague. I assume this refers to the frequency of Trump's false and misleading statements? If so, why don't we just say that? In addition, the "unprecedentedness" of Trump's false and misleading statements is a verifiable fact. We shouldn't be attributing this in-text to "the media," which violates WP:YESPOV (do not treat verifiable facts as opinions) and plays into Trump's war on the media and the concept that reliable sources are somehow on par with a politician's statements.

R2 (bleep) 17:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

TL;DR: the emphasis of the sentence is all wrong, as both clauses are about the media's conduct, rather than about Trump. R2 (bleep) 17:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Mea culpa, I should have omitted my last sentence above. The content sentence in question is the result of an RfC that was open for more than a month a mere few months ago, focused exclusively on that little bit of content, and received over 10,000 words from over 30 editors. One of the precious few editors willing to spend their time doing uninvolved closes spent a considerable amount of it assessing that consensus and writing the close. A change to that consensus should not even be on the table in this discussion. If you feel it's really important, start another RfC and be prepared for the outcry of "too soon to revisit this". ―Mandruss ☎ 17:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the info. I'm positively hitting myself for missing that RfC. R2 (bleep) 18:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Upon review I see I hit the RfC early and never saw Mandruss's proposed language. Damn. R2 (bleep) 19:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Same as MrX as well. And the Mandruss comments also. Gandydancer (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Can remove lots more - keeping 9 out of 11 is not much of a reduction. Some of these seem removable as not biographically major, some seem just an old artifact from when he was a candidate and there was nothing more to say, etcetera. So try eliminating down to just a few lines as was the mid-term precedent for Bush and Obama. Looking instead for whats the most that could be removed as not biographically big and/or not big in article gets a different view of just a couple things really need to stay.

1. KEEP Presidential race. Major life event, large section of the article and much follows from that.
2. Drop free media coverage. It was explaining how he got the nomination, but is not life event or large section.
3. Drop commentators describe. Outside views not a life event, and content not in body -- only populist seems mentioned and not much of it. Shift this to body.
4. Drop has made false. Outside views not a life event, and not much in article - plus has been contentious.
5. Drop documented by fact-checkers. Just adding detail behind prior line.
6. KEEP elected in surprise. Major life event, sizable section of article and much follows from that.
7. Drop oldest and wealthiest, we do keep this kind of trivia here, but its not in article and not important
8. Drop without prior military - we could but others make no lead about such, its not a big life event or big part of article
9. Drop popular vote - not any effect from that, and its just one line in article body - plus its a parisan complaint.
10. Drop numerous protests - not a major life event, small section in article and seems vague blurb for what was a 1-month wonder.
11. Drop perceived as racist - outside views not a life event, big section of the article though. But it was contentious on having in lead.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Update – Thanks for the feedback so far. I'll leave this suggestion open for another week to gather more comments, then we'll see how to proceed. — JFG ^talk 20:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

We had an entire entire RfC on the "unprecedented" sentence. Wouldn't it require another RfC to remove? There was Consensus to use the term "unprecedented" so long as it is properly cited with a WP:RS. This was in February 2019. Has anything substantial changed since then? I doubt it. starship.paint (edits | talk) 04:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a proposal below to condense the two "false statements" sentences into one, while keeping the "unprecedented" qualifier. — JFG ^talk 10:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

There's no rule that a consensus coming out of an RfC is "set in stone" or that it cannot be changed without another RfC. R2 (bleep) 21:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

How are we doing?

Of my proposed changes, there was unanimous support to remove free media coverage, and strong opposition to removing the sentence about fact-checkers. A separate thread was open below to discuss proposals to combine it with the previous sentence about false statements to make the whole point shorter. Other changes were generally supported, except that two persons want to keep the "oldest and wealthiest" stats, and one person would like to remove much more stuff. I'm going to apply the changes that were not substantially contested, and we'll take it from there. The new tenure of the paragraph is:

Trump entered the 2016 presidential race as a Republican and defeated sixteen opponents in the primaries. Commentators described his political positions as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. He was elected president in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, although he lost the popular vote. He became the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency, and the first without prior military or government service. His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. 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. Many of his comments and actions have been perceived as racially charged or racist.

— JFG ^talk 02:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah fine. No opinion on oldest/wealthiest. starship.paint (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Perfectly happy with this version. Mentioning his advanced years is ageist, and mentioning he's wealthy is vulgar, so I wouldn't be opposed to losing the age/wealth thing as Starship.paint said. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose 2600:1702:2340:9470:5922:3A4A:33F9:16A4 (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC) — 2600:1702:2340:9470:5922:3A4A:33F9:16A4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

DPRK redux

I boldly removed the following from the lead today

;and started negotiations with North Korea seeking denuclearization.

JFG reverted my edit, with an ironic edit summary. In my estimation, the summits accomplished little to nothing of merit, and have faded in significance in comparison to the totality of Trump's greatness.

I'm seeking other editors thoughts about whether we should retain this in the lead. If we can't identify a rough consensus, I may start an RfC.- MrX 🖋 00:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

There was no irony implied in my edit summary, and I stand by my rationale: Although the talks have not resulted in a firm disarmament yet, there is no question that the situation has radically de-escalated since the U.S. and North Korea started talking under Trump's impetus. Significant enough for the lead section. At least I didn't spice it up with a side of kimchi.[1] — JFG ^talk 00:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, the latest discussion about North Korea, in October 2018, showed enough support for a brief mention in the lead section. The text was added on 27 October,[2] then slightly modified on 20 December.[3] — JFG ^talk 00:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

You wrote "...there is no question that the situation has radically de-escalated since the U.S. and North Korea started talking under Trump's impetus", which I found ironic because Trump helped escalated the situation in the first place. Kimchi is indeed spicy! - MrX 🖋 00:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, understood. I for one am happy that tensions have eased, and Trump calls Kim "my friend" (how's that for irony?) That's much better than running for the bomb shelters in Guam or Tokyo. — JFG ^talk 01:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

This, this, and this happened in the past few days.- MrX 🖋 11:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes; this surely brings back the subject to center stage. One more reason to keep it in the lead. — JFG ^talk 14:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Ha! Gotchme.- MrX 🖋 14:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• Disagree with MrX removal of this detail.--MONGO (talk) 02:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support removal. Trump's efforts in North Korea have been a total disaster. No progress has been made toward denuclearization, and talks have broken down after another failed summit. Just this morning, the recovery of war dead has been suspended as well. Comprehensive failure. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Just in: AFP: North Korea fires missiles as US envoy visits Seoul starship.paint (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support removal. Negotiations with NK have been going on for decades and still look bleak. Kim Jong-il, Kim Jong-un, "Meet the new boss Same as the old boss" (Apologies to Pete Townshend) O3000 (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

That's not the point. Contrary to his two predecessors, Trump's dialogue with North Korea has received voluminous coverage in RS, in large part because of his unorthodox approach ("I have a bigger nuclear button" and "I try so hard to be his friend"), and due to the unprecedented détente with South Korea (which President Moon credited in great part to Trump's impetus). This is why it's relevant and belongs in the lead, irrespective of current state of affairs or eventual outcome. — JFG ^talk 01:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose removal. We had this discussion before when the sentence was inserted. It is really irrelevant how you assess Trump's North Korean foray. Some have seen it as a positive first step, some have seen it as a achieving nothing, and some have seen it as a horrifying propaganda gift to Kim Jong Un. The point is, it's notable. Everyone has an opinion. But most people agree that it is significant. If it is a foreign policy blunder by Trump, that deserves to be mentioned. This is not a hagiography. He is the first sitting US President to meet a North Korean leader. Many thought he shouldn't do it. Maybe they were right. But he did it. He had two summits. A North Korean leader went into South Korea for the first time since the Korean War. A South Korean leader went to Pyongyang for the first time and got a standing ovation. Yes, the Hanoi summit broke down. But North Korea has not resumed atomic bomb tests or ICBM tests (short-range missiles aren't particularly important). Changes are still happening at the DMZ. We don't know what will happen next, but this is historically significant. It has clearly been a key issue in Trump's presidency, whether it's a success or failure, it belongs in the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

We had this discussion before when the sentence was inserted. When - couldn’t find it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 92#North Korea, October 2018. — JFG ^talk 15:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose removal. Reliable sources consider it important. I don't know what the outcome will be but the leads for Jimmy Carter mentions SALT II and Bill Clinton mentions the 2000 Israel-Palestine talks, both of which ended in failure. I note too the lead for Clinton mentions that he met Kim Jong-il. Can MrX and Scjessey explain why this president should be treated differently from the other two? Why aren't you changing those articles? TFD (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• @The Four Deuces: I mostly work on the articles of current presidents, not past presidents, so I'm not even aware of the content of the articles you are referring to. Also, "whataboutism" is a not an argument that's going to have any success with me. I'm quite happy to see the North Korea stuff in the article, but it simply isn't worthy of inclusion in the lead by virtue of the fact there are at least a thousand other things related to Trump's life that are more biographically significant, but haven't made it into the lead. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• The biographies of past presidents form a useful template for the current president. Partisanship distorts how incumbent presidents are seen. While they were president, Democrats portrayed George W. Bush, Reagan and Nixon as the worst presidents in history; Republicans did the same to Obama and Clinton. TFD (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• All biographies of politicians form useful templates for the current president. Partisanship is of no concern to me, because all of my main space edits are scrupulously neutral (although I'm not afraid to express personal opinion on a talk page). The unique difference we have with Trump is that he absolutely is the worst president in history. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose removal as procedural / policy violation, possibly seek additional sanctions. Edit to lead did not seek or respect explicit consensus, nor the local norm of here any LEAD edit should be done via TALK. (Edits direct to LEAD have been an issue here.) There is no note at the top of TALK that says any ARBADS or WP:ACDS Special restrictions on LEAD edits, so it might be helpful to think about making the norm explicit. (Winter is coming.... and so is election-year madness.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 09:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support removal. Starting negotiations implies that they are continuing but they're not. According to the reliable sources: "both sides are at an impasse"(CNN); the talks "collapse[d]" (NY Times); "with talks collapsing", "fundamental differences" (WaPo). Also, current reports do not seem to be indicative of negotiations: missile launch, launch facility, rebuilding site So, if anything at all, that sentence should read and met with North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un twice. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

  If all there was to report was "he met the guy twice", that indeed would not be lead material. But what really happened is much bigger than that. Even if negotiations remained frozen at the current impasse (which is too early to judge), there has already been radical change in the Korean Peninsula balance of power. I'd credit it chiefly to Moon's overtures towards Kim, but Moon himself said he credits this opening to Trump's actions. Contrary to some of the lesser things that we debate regularly at this article, the softening of the Korean frozen conflict is a radical geopolitical development. Both Koreas have dismantled their "security buffer", a Berlin Wall of sorts, they are building roads and railways across the DMZ. In addition to the South Korea détente, NoKo is also discussing economic links with China, Russia and Japan. Kim is no longer seen as a dire threat to the world, chiefly because Trump started a respectful dialogue with him, a dialogue that includes both carrots (you could be a prosperous country if you stop threatening us) and sticks (we blockade your country, we can crush you any day, and we won't budge until you totally denuke). — JFG ^talk 11:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by radical change in the Korean Peninsula balance of power? What drove Kim to the negotiation table in the first place were the sanctions of the UN Security Council sanctions that were imposed a year before Trump took office and the economic situation in NK becoming increasingly desperate. The Koreas are as divided as before, with less hostile retoric. Clearing the DMZ of landmines in preparation of searching for the remains of Korean War soldiers - that’s hardly a dismantling of the [heavily fortified] border is hardly a dismantling of the [heavily fortified] border. Business Insider calls Trump’s respectful dialogue the "bully-and-threaten approach to dealmaking." That June 2018 article, incidentally, predicted the outcome of the second summit (i.e., impasse) pretty accurately:

There is one other key instance where Trump’s strategy of aggression and cost-imposition has worked: By declaring his intention to cancel the Singapore summit with Kim Jong Un, Trump forced the North Korean leader to back down from his aggressive anti-US rhetoric and show weakness: He was too invested in having the summit to respond aggressively when Trump called his bluff.

However, this is an incremental victory. Trump showed Kim was desperate to meet, but Kim was desperate to meet because he believed the summit would serve key North Korean diplomatic objectives. In future situations, where Trump’s sticks are not accompanied by a carrot Kim really really wants, I would not assume this technique will work again. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

That is just one person's opinion.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Corporate raider

MONGO reverted this edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=896331565&oldid=896322943

asserting that what many would characterize as pump and dump is "standard business practices, quite commonplace really"

The edit is entirely consistent with the reliable source reporting and I recommend it be restored. soibangla (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I support inclusion. This doesn't sound like common trading practice to me. If I'm mistaken then someone should be able to come up with sources to support that. Whether this was actually pump and dump (securities fraud), I don't know and it doesn't really matter for this discussion. R2 (bleep) 23:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a coatrack. Maybe it fits better in a daughter article but not in this BLP. Classifying it as a pump and dump seems to be an editorial decision not supported by RS. A revisit of our BLP policy might be in order.--MONGO (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I did not characterize it as pump and dump in the article. His activities in these trades are relevant to the Side Ventures subsection soibangla (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of Trump's Pump and Dump, per [4][5][6]. It is not a "standard business practice". In fact, it's a form of fraud.[7] The NYT source is already in the article, by the way.- MrX 🖋 23:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose You need to show its overall significance to the topic. According to the source, this information was known 30 years ago, but has only been reported now. TFD (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Wayne Barrett reported it in 1992 - see my below edit. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I suggest moving this information to Wealth of Donald Trump or Business career of Donald Trump or The Trump Organization. — JFG ^talk 01:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support in some article - It is certainly not a common trading practice. If it was P&D, couple of movies about guys in prison for this. O3000 (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• OPPOSE - MALFORMED EDIT. As written looks like editor mangled the source — saying he did dump took profit then “lost back” the money (?!?) makes no sense. Also OBSERVE A 48 HOUR WAITING PERIOD. Please do not channel the morning feed here, trying to breathlessly retweet something new into WP that is less than 24 hours old just functionally lacks time to have WEIGHT or full picture and conceptually seems counter to NOTMIRROR just being a retweet, or NOTNEWS or at least not just-breaking news. If it’s important and factual, it will not go away by tomorrow; if it can’t wait until tomorrow then maybe it shouldn’t be here at all. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

As written looks like editor mangled the source — saying he did dump took profit then “lost back” the money (?!?) makes no sense is incorrect:

From 1986 through 1988, while his core businesses languished under increasingly unsupportable debt, Mr. Trump made millions of dollars in the stock market by suggesting that he was about to take over companies. But the figures show that he lost most, if not all, of those gains after investors stopped taking his takeover talk seriously. soibangla (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support inclusion as Corporate takeover ventures (or something along those lines) in the Side ventures section. It was a side venture from 1986 to 1992 that initially made him a lot of money and then cost him a lot more money than he had made. Wayne Barrett reported Trump’s stock market raids in 1992, in his book Trump: The Deals and the Downfall, reprinted in 2016 under the title The Greatest Show on Earth, chapter 13, The Billion-Dollar Bet.

Trump's first venture was the Holiday Inns in 1986. Trump bought a 4.4 percent stake for almost $70 million without putting up his own money and "immediately applied for a gaming license in Nevada, suggesting that he had takeover intentions." The stock went up, Trump sold his shares at a profit of around $10 million, and claimed that he had made $35 million.

According to the NY Times, he reported gains of $67.3 million to the IRS for 1986 to 1989 and a loss of $34.9 million for 1990 (i.a., half his prior gains); Trump's tax records for the years when he ran the casinos are available because of casino licensing requirements. When Trump had to turn over most of his assets (yacht, Trump Shuttle, Grand Hyatt shares) to his creditors in 1992 (see also bankruptcies), he had to sell his shares in the Alexander’s department store company which were worth only a fraction (18 percent) of what he had paid for them (Alexander's filed for bankruptcy that year), losing $55.5 million of the $67.9 million he had paid. That’s a total loss of $90.4 million.

I’m not saying that we should go into great detail but it’s a sizable venture that is noteworthy for this bio. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Considering the small percentage of these thibgs compared to the entirety of his business dealings it is not notable, least not for this article. So what, he changed his mind on some ventures...and yes that does happen all the time in business.--MONGO (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The dollar magnitude of the trades is minimally relevant, even though they are substantial by a typical person's standards. What is relevant is that he was engaged in an activity that falls into a dubious zone of legality that is most commonly associated with boiler room operations run by shady characters until they get raided by the FBI soibangla (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

An aricle in Memphis provides a different interpretation.[8] Trump thought Holiday Inn was undervalued because of the appreciation of its real estate portfolio in the 1980s. He intended to buy the company but his plans were derailed when the directors found an angel investor and the real estate holdings were sold off. Trump, who had acquired 5% of the shares, profited, but not by as much as he would have had he taken over the company. This isn't pump and dump, as the shares actually had value. TFD (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't see that the article actually says what you say it says. Indeed, it isn't flattering of Trump's motives, it actually smells alot like greenmail. soibangla (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The article doesn’t say that Trump intended to take over the company, just that he made its management believe that he did. The author appears to believe that Trump’s intent was to force the compay to sell off its assets separately. Barrett writes on page 388 that "[t]hough contemptuous of the [Holiday Inns’] management, at least in part because of the generous terms it had given him in 1982, he liked the company’s assets, especially the two Nevada casino’s run by its Harrah’s subsidiary and its highly profitable Harrah’s Marina in Atlantic City." We don’t know what Trump’s real intentions on any of his stock buying ventures were. We only know what he did or didn’t do. According to Barrett, Trump was "[s]ure that he could turn a profit on the raids even if his takeover attempts failed." For a while Trump’s strategy of acquiring stock and dropping hints about takeovers worked. But since he never followed through on any of them, eventually the stock market got wise to the scheme and didn’t take the bait any more. Trump’s shares didn’t rise in value, and he was stuck with the debts for buying them. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Googling trump greenmail bally shows lots of contemporaneous reporting of suspected greenmail and he was fined for not reporting on a timely basis his stock purchases surrounding these activities. I think there is good reason to expand a "Corporate raider" subsection. soibangla (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or not the article was complimentary. As you correctly write, "The author appears to believe that Trump’s intent was to force the compay to sell off its assets separately." That is how Trump intended to profit. Pump and dump would mean that he would profit from people buying his shares on the basis of false information. For example had he falsely stated that the real estate assets were undervalued. This article does not mention "dropping hints." In fact the FTC news article provided by soibangla shows that he did not disclose his purchases. It is not illegal to buy shares on the assumption they are undervalued. It is against the law to falsely state that shares you have purchased are undervalued. soibangla, in order to include information in the article you need to show that it has received significant coverage in secondary sources. A report by the FTC does not count. TFD (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Earlier this month, Nevada Gambling Commission Chairman Paul Bible accused Trump of 'greenmailing' and said state regulators don't like those maneuvers. Trump had purchased a large block of Holiday Corp. stock, which then underwent a major financial restructuring before Trump sold his shares...Nevada was reacting to that deal--at least in part--when it enacted a law several weeks ago prohibiting "greenmail" of casinos in that state...One of the Wall Street naysayers, analyst Harold Vogel of Merrill Lynch in New York, said Thursday: "I tend to think, if history is a guide, that Mr. Trump gets the pot all stirred up. Speculators big and small start to salivate and chase after the stock. Then, within three months, Mr. Trump announces that he has sold his shares at a handsome profit."...According to Greenfield, the repurchase plan amounted to ″greenmail,″ the practice of buying up shares of a company and selling them back for a profit at an inflated price. ″This is a classic sense of Mr. Trump selling the shareholders down the river,″ Greenfield said...Mr. Trump recently applied for a Nevada casino license, but Paul Bible, chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission at the time, said that Nevada regulators would look askance at any greenmailer who hurts casino companies operating in Nevada by acquiring large quantities of stock in order to sell the stake back to the company at a premium...The central issue for many was whether Trump was engaged in the tactic known as "greenmailing." It was an entirely legal strategy repeatedly deployed by activist investors throughout the 1980s -- a practice that, for lack of a better description, amounts to a corporate ransom payment. soibangla (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

30 year old articles are not good sources for articles. Trump said he sold the shares to a third party, so it would not be "greenmail," which in any case was perfectly legal. I am sure that there must be a more complete account of the matter written in the decades following. So here's what we have established: Trump bought shares in a company he believed was undervalued. The shares went up and he sold them. Note too this occurred during a time when both stock and property markets were booming and it was not unusual for speculators to make fortunes overnight, only to lose them after the crash. TFD (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't have any problem at all with 30 year old articles, particularly if nothing has contradicted them in the meantime. I don't think we should say in WP voice that Trump engaged in greenmail, as that doesn't seem to be supported by the sources, but it's appropriate to mention the accusations. R2 (bleep) 15:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

One problem is that we did not know then whether Trump leaked information about his purchases in order to inflate the price, whether he sold them to management or to third parties and whether his selling price was inflated. If these facts were known, then it could be determined whether the transactions were pump and dump, greenmail, or an attempt to gain control of the company or just shrewd speculation. This is a BLP and we should not publish defamatory claims against a person without checking whether or not they turned out to be true. There is an irony in discrediting Trump without checking our facts. (Isn't that what he is accused of doing and the reason we don't like him?) TFD (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

MONGO, your edit summary for the revert was "standard business practices, quite commonplace really." Do you have any RS for that statement? Even if you did, that wouldn’t be a reason for a revert, according to WP:DONTREVERT; engaging in "standard business practices" for several years and making and losing hundreds of millions of dollars seems worthy of—at least—a short and well-sourced mention. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC) Trump’s takeover bids/stock buying and selling activities (Holiday Corp., Bally Manufacturing Corp, Allegis Corp., Federated Department Stores, Alexander’s Department Stores, American Airlines—the list probably isn’t complete) were covered individually in newspaper articles in the 1980s and early 1990s—I’m still sifting through the lot I was able to find. CNN did an in-depth report in 2016 that seems to have been generally ignored (everyone too busy reading DNC and Podesta emails?). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

"Congressional Investigations of Donald Trump" article?

Events are moving at warp speed with subpoenas and such, and I don't know of an existing article where all this stuff should reasonably go. Is it time for a "Congressional Investigations of Donald Trump" article? soibangla (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that looks like a notable topic, and will avoid opening one article per allegation or per investigation. — JFG ^talk 23:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I would even suggest to just call it Investigations of Donald Trump, so that the FBI and Mueller investigations can also be mentioned in WP:Summary style. — JFG ^talk 23:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I support this and like JFG's idea. R2 (bleep) 15:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree..this is completely relevant and obvious.2600:1702:2340:9470:D989:DB3A:96D1:31B7 (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

pinging some potential interested editors: is anyone interested in creating this article? @BullRangifer: @MelanieN: @Starship.paint: @Objective3000: @Muboshgu: @X1\: @MrX: soibangla (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Very notable topics. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I support creating an article and limiting its scope to the congressional investigations. There's plenty of material that could be copied from various related articles to get it started.- MrX 🖋 22:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Interested but not free, sorry. starship.paint (talk) 06:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Capital or lowercase P in WP:LEAD?

The WP:LEAD section contains this sentence: "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States." I see that the "P" in "president of the United States" is lowercase, but is it meant to be like that? The article for the POTUS position has it capitalized, as well as the List of Presidents of the United States. So should the "P" be capitalized? --Kingerikthesecond (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 14:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Using lower case is required by Positions, offices, and occupational titles and applied consistently across Wikipedia. If you disagree with this guideline, then you should first get it changed. TFD (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per MOS:JOBTITLES and local consensus. This has already been extensively discussed at the global and local level. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• This is weird. According to WP:JOBTITLES, we capitalize such titles if they precede the name (President Donald Trump, President Trump) and we capitalize it in the unmodified formal title President of the United States, but not if it is modified. So we would capitalize it for Donald Trump is President of the United States, but not what we currently have, Donald Trump is the 45th and current president of the United States. Pretty picky distinction IMO; if it was up to me I would always capitalize President of the United States. We lowercase it in all other uses, such “he was elected president” or “the president said”. We do the same for other titles such as attorney general (Attorney General Barr, Attorney General of the United States, the attorney general said.) (BTW take a look at the article United States Attorney General; it violates what I just said and capitalizes the generic term Attorney General throughout. AFAICS that has never been discussed on the talk page.) -- MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  Melanie, if WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress, what value is there in pointing to other stuff that doesn't yet comply? We can't fix everything overnight. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  My point was more that this MOS rule may not be as much a universally accepted, ironclad, consensus rule as everybody here is claiming. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  There will never be even close to 100% agreement on any guideline and there are a few vocal editors who think it's constructive to actively resist a guideline they disagree with—out of venue. I call that disruption. The talk page of the biography of Donald Trump is not the place to discuss MoS issues. If an editor wishes to raise the issue yet again, that should be done at the talk page for JOBTITLES, where the greatest community focus and resources can be brought to bear: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  User:MelanieN - I agree with always capitalised, and I tried the position that it is not the preceding word but the nation name afterwards that makes it into a specific title. “President of the United States” is a specific title. Eh. Markbassett (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per MOS:JOBTITLES and the extensive discussion and consensus behind it. Oppose repeated rehashing of settled issues; we don't need a local consensus to comply with a community consensus on MoS questions; i.e. there is nothing special or unique about this case. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support - some rather incomplete and misleading portrayals above. If it takes a different phrasing to make it President, that’s an option. That the MOS is a recent much disliked and often not done thing is a bit missing in the oppose posts. User:Kingerikthesecond - “President of the United States” is a common usage. But the last bright idea at MOS:JOBTITLES flipped over to little p president when it’s preceded by an article, saying that makes it not a title. This usage has grammar books on both sides, and the latest MOS logic may be flawed or have not considered the effort. The examples MOS provided or didn’t seem a bit aglay. At least a couple editors did seem to take MOS as a mandate to decapitalize and edited prominent articles to rephrase and add an article so it became ‘not a title’, but they only did some and so Wikipedia has a mix of both ways. I think I got them to back off trying little q “queen of England” for awhile... Bottom line, if you have disagreement voice it here but also at the MOS. A local consensus against using the MOS does seem respected by the MOS folks, but so far isn’t appearing at their article enough to drive changes. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, very much so. Wikipedia's WP:JOBTITLES appears to be based on The Chicago Manual of Style which—as their Wikipedia article correctly notes—"[m]any publishers throughout the world adopt [] as their style." The Chicago Manual's rules are also widely used in the academic world (AE, at least) and in business, even when users do not specifically refer to the manual by name. Here's a link to a blog for a quick look at capitalization of people's titles, Chicago-style. If individual articles use other capitalization methods instead, then those articles should be corrected. In an environment like Wikipedia with editors from diverse backgrounds and occupations and no direction or guidance except by peers with equally diverse backgrounds it makes even more sense to stick to generally accepted rules for spelling, grammar, and style. Putting cleanup of United States Attorney General on my to-do list. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
• Wrong venue – Please make your case at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. — JFG ^talk 14:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose This is virtually meaningless..if I were writing this I`d keep it small.2600:1702:2340:9470:D989:DB3A:96D1:31B7 (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC improperly ended

Massive waste of energy. Go edit the article or something. — JFG talk 17:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Mgasparin (talk · contribs) improperly removed a "do not archive" tag from an unclosed RfC. The discussion was then prematurely archived as a result. El C (talk · contribs) the "closed" the archived discussion, without informing anyone on the talk page. DannyS712 (talk · contribs) made the change claimed in the close. What the hell happened here? I've reverted the change to the article because the RfC wasn't allowed to finish and be properly closed. Time and time again, RfC's have been allowed to run here for 30 days, with much of the discussion not happening until near the end of this window. This is entirely inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC) What I saw was that Rreagan007 posted at AN (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 97#RfC: "perceived" or "characterized" as racist) asking for a close, and then it was closed - I didn't realize the close was early, and so acted accordingly. I think El C should get a chance to chime in before we decide what to do --DannyS712 (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC) But that's not what happened. It was "closed" AFTER being archived. I've never seen that before. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC) There was nothing "improper" about it. Since the discussion had been archived, I reasonably concluded that the discussion had run its course and made the request for an uninvolved admin to do the close. Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment: "There is no required minimum or maximum duration; however, Legobot assumes an RfC has been forgotten and automatically ends it (removes the rfc template) 30 days after it begins, to avoid a buildup of stale discussions cluttering the lists and wasting commenters' time. But editors should not wait for that: if one of the reasons listed above applies, someone should end it manually, as soon as it is clear the discussion has run its course." The discussion seemed to have run its course and consensus seemed clear. I think the close was proper and should stand. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC) It seems like the discussion had gone stale, since there had been no new comments in a week. I just thought I'd expedite. Feel free to reopen and unarachive, but not on procedural grounds alone. El_C 19:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC) Thank you Rreagan007 for the RfC refresher. Comment stricken since there is no binding procedure. El_C 19:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC) I saw that no one had added anything for almost 3 weeks to the discussion. Why should stale threads be kept? Mgasparin (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC) RfC's frequently go "quiet" on this take page during the 30-day window they are usually open. You should've requested a close before removing the "do not archive" tag, since it was that act that created this mess. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC) For the record: It was 11 days, not three weeks. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Scjessey, please do not make edits on the mainspace on the assumption that consensus had not been reached. That is what's being debated here. Wait for that discussion to conclude first. You should view the RfC as properly closed unless shown otherwise. El_C 19:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC) @El C: The "closure" you made was highly unusual. The RfC was archived before the discussion had run its course, and you closed it without letting anyone know on this talk page. No other RfC on this talk page has ever been archived early and closed in this way. RfC's frequently are quiet for a few days before picking up again nearer the end of the usual 30-day window. I strenuously object to what has happened here. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC) No discussion—RfC or otherwise—should be closed on the archive page. Editors need the opportunity to review and challenge the close, and the close needs to be part of the talk page's history. Doing that also violates the principle that no change should be made to an archive page except (1) removal of a discussion that has been restored to the talk page, and (2) a fix of the extremely rare serious formatting problem. We try to use {{DNAU}} to prevent auto-archival until after the close, and we just missed this one (the DNAU removed by Mgasparin was in the precursor discussion, not the RfC). But, if an RfC is archived prematurely, the solution is to restore it. In my opinion the RfC should be restored and then can be closed on this page if appropriate per the closing guidelines. I have no opinion on that point, but as noted the 30-day thing is a widespread misinterpretation of the bot de-listing time and should not be a factor in that decision. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC) Twenty days duration seems fine. I see no need to neither reopen nor go through other hoops on procedural grounds alone. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. El_C 21:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC) Thank you.2600:1702:2340:9470:51D0:6F48:F0C9:BBAA (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC) Sorry, but your citing WP:BURO shows a failure to hear my comments, which are considerably more substantive than unnecessary bureaucracy. If you don't do the restore, I expect somebody will do it for you. Possibly me. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict) With an "apparent" consensus (although since it was ended prematurely and procedurally improperly, who the fuck really knows?), I am not going to make any further stink about this. I think Mandruss makes excellent points about why it should be restored, even if the final result will be the same. But we need to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen again, so I suggest the "rules" of how we conduct RfCs on this highly controversial article talk page should be clearly defined going forward. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC) Scjessey, it did not end prematurely. Mandruss, go for it. I think it's unnecessary and doesn't makes a difference, but by all means. El_C 21:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC) Roger wilco. Please don't close discussions on archive pages. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC) What? RfC is still closed. El_C 21:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC) Okay, so you wanted me to close it a 2nd time. Fine. But it seems unnecessary. This very section header serves as a notice to editors about the RfC's close. Oh well, not important. El_C 21:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC) User:Scjessey I think that idea of local RFC guidance could a constructive benefit out of this. Please do start a thread and propose a few. (Hoping it doesn’t take much.). I’m oddly impressed by your StarTrek famous example, I think I’ve seen some vicious ones in gaming articles that ran on a bit too. Good to be reminded this one isn’t the worst in heat or longest threads. (I suspect it’s a contender for the most threads or most archives.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC) User:El_C - Improper closure just messes up the whole RFC. I didn't want this RFC topic yet again, but User:Scjessey and User:Mandruss are correct that RFCs here should not be oddly closed with handwaving of BURO and wrong statements "no one had added anything for almost 3 weeks" for the edit in question (commented "It's been 19 days since there was any activity in this thread. Why not let it archive?") where I note that 6 May to 15 May is less than 9 days and the exaggeration is increasing. There is no urgent need to get a conclusion 10 days sooner and given the contentious nature of the article wind up with a questionable result that might not be respected. The quick responses came from the usual suspects -- fresh inputs, if any, are more likely to be latecomers. I'm not going to start the RFC again, but would not want this type of close to be repeated on any RFC here -- and will be unsurprised and inclined to accept if someone else reopens this one - arggh yet another time -- just because of this close. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC) It wasn't an improper closure — nothing that was said here so far leads me to believe so. So it was closed on the archive — big deal. So it was 20 days instead of 30 — big deal. I doubt the closure will be challenged on that basis. Burro applies to the crux of it. And please don't misquote me. El_C 21:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC) The close was entirely proper. There is no minimum length for an RfC. The RfC had gone cold and was automatically archived as a result. I highly doubt anyone was going to be commenting on an RfC sitting in the archives. Consensus was clear with 80% support and the RfC needed to be closed. From what I can tell, the people complaining about the close are just not happy that consensus went against them on this RfC and are trying to attack it on a specious procedural ground. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC) The close was not improper, nor was discussion about it. The close on the archive page was improper and I would be happy to meet anyone who disagrees at the Village Pump. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC) Not a big deal. This discussion serves as sufficient due notice that it happened. I'm not sure I see the significance. El_C 23:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC) Just to be clear, this RfC is not going to be reopened, unless I see a consensus of other uninvolved admins that it ought to be. El_C 23:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC) Obviously, it's less than desirable that it was closed on the archive, but that's water under the bridge. Obviously, the lesson from that is for me to pay more attention. But no need to exaggerate its significance, either. I, for one, feel like we've exhausted this. El_C 23:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC) If you agree not to close on archive pages, I agree we've exhausted this (and exhausted me); otherwise we're just kicking a can down the road until the next time, here or elsewhere. This is not something where editors should agree to disagree. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC) Would you say that continuing a discussion on an archive page is not a big deal? I hope not, and I fail to see why a close of that discussion is any different. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC) I feel this to be circular. Yet again, since everyone already knows of the close by virtue of this very discussion, it's not a big deal. El_C 00:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Look, the question is not whether it's a big deal after the fact, but whether you will continue to do it. I think it's unwise to leave something like this without a clear resolution and agreement, but kick the can if you must. Since I've never seen this before in 5 years of editing, it at least seems unlikely to come up again any time soon. We can hope. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC) I've read this entire thread and I'm still not sure exactly what you would have preferred to have happen in this case. The RfC was just sitting abandoned on the archive page needing to be closed. Are you saying that if the closer had simply moved it back to the talk page and closed it there, you would have been fine with it? Rreagan007 (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Yes. Either that, or just left it alone, and either (1) someone else would've restored it for possible further discussion and close, or (2) the group would've judged that it didn't need further discussion or close (AFAIK there is no firm requirement to close an RfC) and left it alone. As I said above, I had no opinion on whether it was ready to close at that time. (Note to group: I'm trying to drop this, but I was asked a question.) ―Mandruss ☎ 05:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC) @Rreagan007: "I'm still not sure exactly what you would have preferred to have happen in this case. The RfC was just sitting abandoned on the archive page needing to be closed." If you go back and read the beginning of the discussion again, you will see there were two problems: The section was archived prematurely, after someone removed the "do not archive" tag on an unclosed RfC. RfCs must be closed before being archived. The discussion was closed after it was archived, which I have never seen before in over 14 years of editing Wikipedia. As I indicated above, I was perfectly happy with the perception characterization that a consensus around "characterized" had formed (your comment "From what I can tell, the people complaining about the close are just not happy that consensus went against them..." is aspersion-casting bullshit), but I was extremely unhappy with the procedural faux pas surrounding the RfC's closure. Going forward, I insist this talk page adopt some sort of "regular order" with RfCs, particularly as this is an article about a highly controversial figure. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Look, it's unlikely to happen again. Why are you devoting so much energy on something whose possibility of reoccurrence (in any article) is so remote? El_C 12:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Well, I had already said my piece. Rreagan007 then posted something that indicated they didn't know what the problem was, so I felt it was necessary to reiterate the point. Discussions on this talk page are always very contentious, and RfCs are very commonplace (sadly). It is important that everyone contributing here knows exactly how RfCs on this talk page are going to work. There needs to be an expectation of how long an RfC is going to remain open (30 days is a good target to shoot for), and that a close should occur before archiving. I am disturbed (as are others) that this departure from the normal procedure has been waived away as "no big deal", when it absolutely is a big deal on a contentious page like this. We all need to be lock step with how RfCs are going to go here in order to avoid exactly this kind of pointless squabbling. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC) If you feel this is a productive use of your time, by all means keep this going, indefinitely. El_C 12:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Don't tempt me! I was an active participant in the one of the most famous examples of an epically pedantic talk page discussion in Wikipedia history. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC) I always suspected you were a little crazy, but not Star Trek crazy.... PackMecEng (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC) @PackMecEng: It says it right there on my user page: STAR TREK This user likes firing all phasers and a full spread of photon torpedoes. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC) User:El_C No, I did not misquote you, I correctly quoted the Mgasparin comment in the first link of this thread, which incorrectly said the RFC was idle 19 days. I partly quoted your comment of “I saw that no one had added anything for almost 3 weeks” etcetera as going from bad math to exaggeration. It seems you had not actually checked the thread activity itself. And yes, this was called an “improper close”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC) No, I did not say that. Why do you continue to misquote me, partially or otherwise? El_C 20:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC) @Scjessey:I agree with you that the RfC shouldn't have been archived before it was closed, but the fact is it was archived before it was closed, so something needed to be done about that. Having it sit in the archives unclosed was not acceptable. All indications were that the RfC had reached its natural end anyway and a consensus had emerged, and closing it at that point was the appropriate thing to do given the circumstances. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Er... no. It was only archived early because Mgasparin removed the "do not archive" tag that had specifically been placed there to prevent it happening before the usual RfC window closed. Had that not occurred, I'm sure none of the rest of this mess would've happened either. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Er... yes. The do not archive tag should not have been removed, but it was, and the RfC was archived as a result. And there is no set length for a RfC. If an RfC reaches a natural conclusion before 30 days, then it's supposed to be closed. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC) You are correct that there is no set length for an RfC; however, on this talk page we have almost always allowed RfCs to run for 30 days. And it did not reach a "natural conclusion" because it was archived before that could happen. This isn't rocket science. I laid out exactly what happened at the top of this thread. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC) The fact that discussion on it had ended to the point where it was automatically archived indicates to me that it had reached its natural conclusion. I wish the do-not-archive tag had not been removed and it had not been automatically archived, but it was and it did. Since that series of events happened, the appropriate course of action was for an admin do the close. And if people want to have a local consensus that RfC's on this talk page going forward should have a 30-day minimum, in apparent contradiction to the normal RfC procedures, then that is something that should be explicitly discussed. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Agreed on that last point. Editors all over the project mistake the bot de-listing time for a default close time. Those who know the difference often feel it's easier to let it run 30 days than to start a 5-day debate with those who don't, but there is no requirement that they do so. If things are to be different at this article, that's at least as list-worthy as #Current consensus item 13, which has proven its list-worthiness. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC) Mgasparin removed the DNAU from the precursor discussion, not the RfC. The RfC had no DNAU because we forgot to give it one. Both of which I said in this thread two days ago. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Foreign policy section outdated? especially regarding Israel and Zionism

As it stands, the foreign policy section includes the following statements;

"Trump has been described as a non-interventionist[665][666] and as an American nationalist.[667] He has repeatedly stated that he supports an "America First" foreign policy."

And on Israel;

"Regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Trump has stated the importance of being a neutral party during potential negotiations, while also having stated that he is "a big fan of Israel".

Aren't these statements anachronistic? This appears to be what Trump said he stood for when he was on the election trail in 2016, but doesn't really match what has panned out during his presidency. Donald Trump has been described as the "most Zionist" president in US history by Professor Michael Hudson of Georgetown University, he has recognised the Syrian Golan Heights as part of Israel, he has moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem, he is extremely close to Republican Jewish Coalition big-movers and shakers like Sheldon Adelson, during his presidency the US has sent $38 billion of taxpayer money to Israel for military aid, Trump personally has pressed policies hostile to the Palestinian people, Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner has extremely close personal ties to the Israeli Prime Minister, Trump has publically engaged in a campaign against Ilhan Omar and now Rashida Tlaib for refusing to put Israel First before the United States.

There are many more examples that can be provided to challenge the current content approach on this topic in the article, but for Wikipedia to portray Trump as a neutral party in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or of adhering to an America First foreign policy is laughable at this point and I propose we re-write using some of the above sources, reflecting what has happened since he actually took office. Even mainstream liberal publications like the New York Times are now openly publishing cartoons which portrays Trump as completely subservient on the issue of Israel especially. Ishbiliyya (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the Israel section was misleading. I have edited the section to separate his rhetoric as a candidate from his actions as president. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

It now looks pretty good to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Not sure who edits this page

This page is highly biased and does not follow the rules of wiki! JCMonstore (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you point to anything you don't like in particular? Biased in what way? What Wikipedia rules aren't being followed? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Reversion explanation

I reverted this removal of cited content on the basis that it doesn't violate WP:WEIGHT. I think this should be properly discussed first. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I already did the BRD...sorry if my revert of that undue material was not characterized as a challenge by my reversion already. That belongs in the Presidency article, not this BLP.--MONGO (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

There are some edits in the subsection that probably don't belong there, but this particular edit isn't among them. If we're going to have an "Economy and trade" section in his BLP, a significant effect of his signature economic policy is most certainly germane. soibangla (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

There were numerous sources before and after the election that Trump was going to cause a stock sell off/recession/economic turmoil etc. and for most folks that has not rung true. If were going to be adding prognistications its best to do it somewhere off the BLP main page.--MONGO (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

In this case it is based on the economic reality that the administration has imposed tariffs which directly increase the costs paid by businesses/consumers buying imports, and economists have actual empirical data to work with. If anything belongs here, this does. soibangla (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Irregardless, my edit was the BRD so Scjessey should self revert.--MONGO (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

It belongs in the article.2600:1702:2340:9470:9C71:218B:7331:3E2E (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Your edit summary said Undue for this BLP, perhaps in Presidency subarticle. Why are his decades in TV (wrestling, beauty pageants, Apprentice) undue for a personal bio? You removed the occupation "television personality" from the info box in the same edit. That's not something that could happen accidentally. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Removing the television personality was not intended and should be kept of course.--MONGO (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• REMOVED. Please follow WP:BRD - don’t restore the changes or engage in back and forth reverting. The para comparing tarrifs to tax breaks had been deleted, posting a thread and discussing was good and proper. Restoring it immediately, not so much.

This seems yet another same-day posted story, and as I’ve said before that simply gives no time for WEIGHT (if any) to appear, or responses and further details. WP is not a news hotline, give it a 48 hour waiting period and it will be more obvious whether it is big or not. I rather doubt it though — this is a speculation and calculation against if tariffs go on vs comparison, a created item rather than factual event or causally linked item. Newspaper has to fill the space up with something every day and this is a good do — but WP doesn’t and shouldn’t copy every one. Also, this does seem the wrong article, OFFTOPIC as not BLP - not one of his personal life decisions or impacts - and CNBC remarks are too low a detail for here. It might take the mentioned suggestion and try the Presidential article, though even there I think it should be viewed as little coverage (UNDUE) illustrative speculation and/or partisan posturing. And WP simply cannot usefully add immediately same-day tales, each day, of every story du jour of daily spin. As a crafted portrayal rather than simple report of event facts, it should only get space if it shows some duration, spread, and effect. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• The material is appropriate for this article, every bit as much as the tax cuts passed by Congress. It has been extensively covered by major news organizations. We should also add that Trump lied[9] about Chinese paying the tariffs: "So our country can take in $120 billion a year in tariffs, paid for mostly by China, by the way, not by us. A lot of people try and steer it in a different direction. It’s really paid — ultimately, it’s paid for by — largely, by China."[10][11]- MrX 🖋 12:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

After I reverted MONGO's edit and then posted here, I went offline until just now. Looking back at the edit history, I see that I had incorrectly assumed the paragraph in question had been there for much longer. I apologize to @MONGO: for reverting their quite proper BRD edit. I would've self reverted, but I can see that I sparked off a bit of an edit war. For the record, I am in favor of retaining the paragraph per comments made above by Space4Time3Continuum2x and MrX, but I would be perfectly happy for it to be removed pending the outcome of this discussion. My bad. Apart from the big tax give away to rich people and corporations, Trump's tariffs have had more of a direct impact on the economy (and the stock market in particular) than anything else he has done in the last couple of years, so obviously it is something that should be included. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. There were numerous sources before and after the election that Trump was going to cause a stock sell off/recession/economic turmoil etc. and for most folks that has not rung true. What does that have to do with the added costs for businesses and consumers through tariffs imposed on imports and those costs going straight into the government's coffers? That's not soothsaying, it's math. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The edit is not BOLD. That it may be stunning to and intensely disliked by some does not make it BOLD. soibangla (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• User:Soibangla The Revert comment of MONGO for the CNBC 5/16 comparing projected tax cuts to projected tariffs was “Undue for this BLP, perhaps in Presidency sub article”. Please BRD Discuss with MONGO, preferably in policy and factual evidence. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I did discuss it with MONGO on the terms you describe. soibangla (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• I cannot believe the people here who are NOT abiding by my BRD reversion. My reversion should not be edit warred over until a consensus is achieved either way. @Awilley: maybe can check the recent editing history and issue reminders to MrX and others who keep restoring this material without a consensus to do so.--MONGO (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

This also might be a good opportunity to re-examine the reasonableness of invoking BRD when an edit isn’t actually BOLD. soibangla (talk) 03:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

You inserted this content on 17 May 2019, 18:02,[12] and MONGO reverted two hours later at 20:19.[13] Per BRD, the first edit was Bold, the second was a Revert, and now people are Discussing. There is no need to re-examine the reasonableness of invoking BRD, unless you want to question a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia. — JFG ^talk 07:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not questioning a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia. I am saying that the edit was not BOLD to begin with, and I already explicitly stated that to make my position abundantly clear. soibangla (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

After the initial B and R steps, various editors edit-warred over the content (Scjessey, Rogerd, Kingerikthesecond, Markbassett and MrX); that is improper. Please all wait until this discussion reaches consensus. In the meantime, the disputed content must stay out, and I will remove it now. I have not yet formed an opinion on the merits of this text; this is purely a procedural removal — JFG ^talk 07:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I have opened a new thread to discuss what to say about the #Impact of tariffs on U.S. consumers. Thus, procedural issues (discussed here) can be segregated from content issues (to be discussed in new thread). — JFG ^talk 08:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: As I said above, I had not realized the material was only recently added when I challenged MONGO's edit. I thought I was initiating a BRD cycle. It was not my intention to edit war, and I specifically apologized for precipitating one in my comment above. It is absolutely correct that the paragraph in question should not be in the article unless a consensus for inclusion is reached. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I understand that you only realized this later + you took the right step by initiating the discussion. No problem at all. — JFG ^talk 13:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Making a single edit is never edit warring and I don't need a reminder, thank you. My edit was perfectly reasonable.- MrX 🖋 12:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but JFG is right. This article is under WP:1RR, and technically every edit removal/addition of the content after MONGO's is a violation (including mine and JFG's). -- Scjessey (talk) 12:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Huh? 1RR is not a shared restriction. I made on 1RR. I'm not responsible for the others. Please read WP:EW if you still think a single revert ever qualifies as edit warring.- MrX 🖋 17:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@MrX: It's not WP:EW that you need to be concerned about, it's WP:ARBAPDS. I've previously received warnings for a single edit that initiated or perpetuated an edit war, and all the edits after MONGO's initial reversion did this. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

That's just not right. I initiated the Arbcom case that resulted in ARBAPDS and at no evidence whatsoever was presented about editors making a single revert, nor did Arbcom have any findings of fact in that regard. You may be thinking of Coffee's restrictions, which gave inordinate control of these articles to sockpuppets and SPAs who had no interest in developing articles.- MrX 🖋 19:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@MrX: Once an edit has been "challenged" per WP:BRD (as MONGO did), there should be no further deletions/restorations of the material in question, and it most certainly not be edit warred over, even if it is only a single edit. That's akin to tag teaming, even if it isn't specifically coordinated. Administrators have taken a dim view of this sort of behavior, including when it comes to enforcing ARBAPDS. Yes, Coffee was responsible for some particularly aggressive enforcement, but that still doesn't change the underlying enforcement policy. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

We’ve come all this way without any explanation as to why the edit was considered BOLD to begin with, but instead the reverter demands that the editor explain why it isn’t BOLD. Thus the reverter succeeds in vetoing an edit by demanding others prove a negative, when the reverter hasn’t even justified the basis for the reversion. This might lead a reasonable person to conclude that the reversion is based on a false pretext, a ruse when no valid reason to revert is readily available. IMO, it’s GAMING. It’s IDONTLIKEIT. And why do I get the feeling that some guys are smirking and snickering as they read this? soibangla (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: I got a warning after one damn edit? WTF?? Are you saying that 0RR applies now? This edit is UNDUE --rogerd (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean to "warn" any of you. I just wanted to stop the edit-warring, and let people discuss the merits of the text in a proper thread below. — JFG ^talk 19:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

It isn't EW. Read the special restriction. X is right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soibangla (talk • contribs) 02:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

No, it is. Under the restrictions, any reversion that is again reverted can be considered edit warring. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@MONGO: BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes; BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing; BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle soibangla (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

While it is true MONGO should've begun a discussion on this talk page after reverting, they did provide an explanation for their reversion in their edit summary:

"Undue for this BLP, perhaps in Presidency subarticle"

-- Scjessey (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

As I explained to MONGO in this thread, There are some edits in the subsection that probably don't belong there, but this particular edit isn't among them. I find it interesting that s/he finds the only "UNDUE" edit in the subsection to be the one that reports from multiple reliable sources on the actual outcomes of the tariffs now coming in, confirming that the warnings from the overwhelming consensus of reputable economists when the tariffs were proposed are now coming to pass. Trump calls himself Mr. Tariffs, it is his signature economic policy, he's been talking about it for 30+ years, and a brief discussion of the outcomes of that policy is DUE, while other edits in the subsection likely are not, yet no one ever called those edits UNDUE. soibangla (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Impact of tariffs on U.S. consumers

As a replacement for the procedural thread above, please discuss here which language and which sources should be used to cover the impact of tariffs on American consumers. — JFG ^talk 08:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The reverted edit was perfectly adequate in every respect and should be restored. soibangla (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Obviously some editors disagree, so the WP:ONUS is on you to convince them before the content can be restored. — JFG ^talk 19:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Would you or others like to explain precisely how the edit is BOLD, as opposed to, say, WP:IREALLYDONTLIKEIT? soibangla (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Any edit that adds content is bold. WP:BRD states: Bold editing is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. All editors are welcome to make positive contributions. It's how new information is added to Wikipedia. and If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change to establish consensus. Anyway, that is not the point: the process discussion was the previous thread. Here, you are invited to make your case on the merits of your proposed content. — JFG ^talk 06:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

If Any edit that adds content is bold were true, countless editors would be routinely citing BRD to revert edits they don't like. Alas, that is rare, in fact. BRD is being GAMED in this instance. soibangla (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Trump sexual assult alegations

There is nothing in this article related to the charges against trump related to numerous allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior and sexual assault.2600:1702:2340:9470:F4A0:7159:94A:8054 (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

You’re mistaken. There’s a section “Sexual misconduct allegations” within the section on 2016 campaign, and it also points to the article about them. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)