Talk:Donald Trump

Historical file size
Size of the article's wikitext over time. File size at the beginning of each month (UTC).

Highlighted open discussions

• None.

Current consensus

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

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

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

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

04. Superseded by #15

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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

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

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

07. Superseded by #35

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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

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

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

10. Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016)

11. Superseded by #17

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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

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

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

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

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

17. Superseded by #50

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

18. Superseded by #63

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

19. Obsolete

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

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

21. Superseded by #39

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

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

23. Superseded by #52

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

24. Superseded by #30

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35. Superseded by #49

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

36. Superseded by #39

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

45. Superseded by #48

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nobel peace nominations

Should we add section about his 3 nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize?7rexkrilla (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

No. A nomination means nothing; almost anyone can submit a nomination to the Nobel Committee for almost any reason. Trump has been known to solicit nominations. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Why are you lying (on the internet)?. Show me three examples of trump soliciting nominations. Also you have to fulfull specific criteria to submit a nomination for the nobel peace prize. The criteria is public and can be found on the website of the nobel prize comitee, but I'll post it here for ease of access.

According to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation, a nomination is considered valid if it is submitted by a person who falls within one of the following categories:

Members of national assemblies and national governments (cabinet members/ministers) of sovereign states as well as current heads of states

Members of The International Court of Justice in The Hague and The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague

Members of l’Institut de Droit International

Members of the international board of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom

University professors, professors emeriti and associate professors of history, social sciences, law, philosophy, theology, and religion; university rectors and university directors (or their equivalents); directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes

Persons who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize

Members of the main board of directors or its equivalent of organizations that have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize

Current and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee (proposals by current members of the Committee to be submitted no later than at the first meeting of the Committee after 1 February)

Former advisers to the Norwegian Nobel Committee 7rexkrilla (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Hyberbolic language doesn't help Melania.Editing Scapegoat (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Snopes: Trump Campaign Touts Nobel Peace Prize Nominations as ‘Big Thing,’ History Suggests Otherwise

https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/09/16/trump-nobel-peace-prize/

Despite Trump’s characterization of the nominations as a “big thing,” the bar for being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize is lower than many American voters might imagine, and the list of nominees is typically neither a short nor exclusive one. It has in the past even contained the names of some of the most reviled and controversial figures in 20th century history.

The total number of individuals eligible to nominate someone else for the Nobel Peace Prize is therefore likely to be greater than half a million, though this is only a rough estimate.

as a result of the very large pool of potential nominators, representing a wide range of viewpoints and expertise, the list of peace prize nominees is not always composed of worthy individuals. In the past, even some of the 20th century’s most controversial and reviled historical figures have managed to garner nominations, including:

Joseph Stalin — Responsible for the deaths of several million Soviet subjects, through political purges, enforced famine and starvation, and mass execution. Nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 1945 and 1948.

Benito Mussolini — Brutal Italian fascist dictator. Nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by two nominators, in 1935.

Josip Broz (“Tito”) — Controversial Yugoslav dictator who was declared “President for Life” towards the end of his nearly three decades of rule. His secret police violently suppressed dissent and opposition to his leadership. Nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1963.

Rafael Trujillo — Dominican dictator whose 31-year reign, from 1930 to 1961, was characterized by exceptionally brutal and violent crackdowns on perceived dissenters and opponents, as well as the October 1937 Parsley Massacre, in which Trujillo ordered the execution of thousands of Haitians, many of them carried out with machetes. Received seven nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1936.

So, no. Don't add it. It's not a big deal. starship.paint (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• No MelanieN and starship.paint have the right of it, this is trivial. It wouldn't even be relevant at List of honors and awards received by Donald Trump. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

  I think it is relevant at that article if not here too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

C’mon guys — It’s obvious the vast majority of Wikipedia editors hate President Donald Trump but that’s no reason to say being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize is not a big deal. You guys add plenty of content about Trump that is far less significant, like eating fast food. How do you expect to attract new users and donors when the average reader realizes its editors think eating a Big Mac is a bigger deal than a Nobel Peace Prize? One reason Trump was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his leadership in brokering the Abraham Accords, bringing about the full normalization of relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and marking a major step toward a more peaceful Middle East. Even CNN thought it was Nobel worthy. A Middle East peace agreement is a big deal, no matter how many Big Macs Trump has eaten, and it is for that reason President Trump’s Nobel Peace Prize nominations should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktg.jr.md (talk • contribs) 05:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Good point. In 100 years are people going to be bothered about his fast food preferences, or his multiple Noble Peace Prize nominations (and possible victories). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Info from the recent NYT article in the lead?

I see that two referenced sentences have been added to the lead’s second paragraph, about Sunday’s NYT articles reporting information gleaned from his tax returns. It is in the article too, of course, as required for something to be in the lead: a subsection has been opened under the "Business career" section, and a rather shaky sentence has been added to the "Wealth" section. I certainly agree with putting this in the article text, and I predict the material will be expanded as additional NYT articles are published. If secondary sources other than NYT report it heavily, or if it becomes a major election issue, it may well become important enough to include in the lead. However, I question adding this to the lead right away, especially two sentences (overkill) with references (we have avoided using references in the lead) based on a single source published only yesterday (NOTNEWS). I suspect this was put in the lead based on editors' opinions of how important the information is, rather than on the weight of coverage by Reliable Sources. I have not reverted this addition, but I would like to hear what other people think. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it should stay out of lead for now soibangla (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no hurry for wikipedia to include this, so keep it out of the lede and just wait for whatever happens next. Carptrash (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have removed it from the lead for now. Discussion can continue. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

What about net worth?

I added this. The rationale was that since his wealth figures are disputed (and have been for years), the NYT piece would serve as an important bit of balance. I'm fine waiting for [even] more coverage, but I'd like some sort of "caveat lector" around the Forbes estimate in the lead. François Robere (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the net worth figure should be removed. It has long been dubious, but it is no longer credible or DUE especially for a BLP. SPECIFICO talk 00:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

For the lead, I'd sooner remove net worth than attempt to qualify it. If we feel the need to get that deep in the weeds, that's generally a sign that the issue is too complex to be adequately covered within the space constraints of the lead. But I'd be ok with leaving it low in the infobox. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

NYT reports: "[the data] report that Mr. Trump owns hundreds of millions of dollars in valuable assets, but they do not reveal his true wealth." If Trump owns gross assets of hundreds of millions, it's hard to see how he could have a net worth of $2.1 billion considering his debt load. Forbes et al. attempt to make estimates about an opaque private company, and it may make for fine entertainment, but I find it dubious guesswork. I think the whole thing is too fuzzy to even mention. soibangla (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@François Robere, SPECIFICO, Mandruss, and Soibangla: This sounds to me like consensus to remove the "net worth" sentence from the lead. And possibly from the infobox also? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes to removal from the lead prose, no objection to removal from the infobox. @François Robere, SPECIFICO, Mandruss, and Soibangla: Repeating the pings, since notifications don't work when you add them after the fact. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Let's remove both. SPECIFICO talk 02:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for pinging. François Robere (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, both should come out. soibangla (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for removing them, François. And thanks for the re-pings, Mandruss. My bad; I just spaced. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Even if we don't put an exact figure in the lead and infobox, do you not think that some mention should be included. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

There's no RS for any statement about his wealth - excepting the ultimately uninformative and inconclusive reports that he has long overstated it. I don't think that would add much, but we could consider something to that effect. SPECIFICO talk 16:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

As we would not put an exact figure, so it would be inconclusive. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't forget that lead must summarize body. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

So, Emir, what text do you propose? SPECIFICO talk 19:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I will have to give it some thought. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Wealth and business career

ATM the article expounds on Trump's wealth in a subsection under "Personal life", but some of the information there is also relevant to the "Business career" section. How should we handle this without duplicates? François Robere (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikilinks to works/publications in refs

Is there some reason why we link to the Wikipedia articles on the work/publication in each of the 965 refs? I don't think it's necessary to have repetitive links, as many of these sources are repeated (i.e., New York Times is cited around 160 times, but the article on the newspaper is linked in every single ref). This doesn't seem very helpful to the average reader, and it presumably inhibits page loading times by quite a bit. We don't seen to do this in other articles. Neutrality^talk 17:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a very long page. Do we expect a read to go through all 965 references to find a link? If we are going to change the references we should use cite web instead of cite news, which would save around 901 characters that do not help the reader at all. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Most people going to a ref are going to want the URL to the cite. They're not going to want/need the Wikipedia article on the Associated Press or Reuters or whatever. Neutrality^talk 18:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I have always felt the same way. I never link to the source when I post a reference, but somebody comes around afterwards and does it. Waste of time and bandwidth in my opinion. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and if the reporter(s) cited in the reference have a Wikipedia article, somebody links to their article every time too. More waste of time and bandwidth. I wonder if there is some central location where we can get a community opinion on this practice? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Doing the math: 965 references x 4 keystrokes for each link = 3,860 bytes just for the links to the sources. Linking to authors - I’m not going to do the math but it’s at least as many, probably more. The article currently has almost 500,000 bytes. Looks like up to 10,000 of those bytes are from these unnecessary links. BTW they also violate MOS, see MOS:DUPLINK. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

DUPLINK says "Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article". We could say there is a benefit to linking the work/publication, but there is no benefit to using cite news over cite web so if we are going to start somewhere we should start with that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction re: DUPLINK. I don't understand your point about cite news and cite web. They look totally identical to me, except that cite web has entries for an archive URL and archive date while cite news does not. Where is the saving? (I grant you I am using an older version of reflinks so maybe you are seeing something that I am not.) -- MelanieN (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Both cite web and {{cite news}} support the archive parameters. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Cite news and cite web do look identical. That is my point. We can save around 901 characters, with no loss to the reader. Removing the wikilinks does save space, but at the loss of the wikilinks. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The word "web" or "news" is not in what the reader downloads, so the choice makes zero difference to readers. The effect on editing of reducing 498,913 bytes to 498,012 bytes would be vanishingly insignificant. A sense of proportion is required. The only significant factor is how important is it to comply with the template guidance on this? While the difference is completely cosmetic and arbitrary today, that could change in the future. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I have changed cite news to cite web. It looks like no reference has been negatively affected. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

IIRC, and I could be wrong, but one difference is italicizing. -- Valjean (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: You're wrong, and you may be thinking of the difference between |publisher= (not italicized) and |work= and its aliases (italicized). ―Mandruss ☎ 01:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

That's it! Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, you missed the obvious case where any reference without a URL throws a CS1 error when used citeweb.

This is a purely cosmetic change that is absolutely useless and as others have said they do not make any difference whatsoever. The difference is much more easily separating "news" sources from "web" sources in the edit window - which is invaluable to many editors. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I was reverted by Izno who deemed it unnecessary. When I looked at the list of references I could not see any that showed a CS1 error about a lack of URL. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Johnson, Glen. "Donald Trump eyeing a run at the White House". Standard-Speaker. Hazelton, Pennsylvania. Missing or empty |url= (help). It is a minor note on my part however. While the difference is completely cosmetic and arbitrary today, that could change in the future. I think is salient, though I don't anticipate it changing from being consistent given that cite news was deliberately made consistent within the past few years, at least for the core citation details. I agree the most value is much more easily separating "news" sources from "web" sources in the edit window - which is invaluable to many editors. which is subsequently used for e.g. citation review like Headbomb's. From memory, these citations also put out minor distinctive HTML s.t. one could reasonably highlight news sources in CSS vice those which are generic web sources. --Izno (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Support status quo per MOS:DUPLINK, and note that nobody is required to conform, or criticized for not conforming, but their tolerance of editors who choose to do so is appreciated.

Using 15 for average length of the values, the author links contribute about 8,000 bytes to the file size – 1.6%. I say it's worth it. It's true that few of the author links will be used, but some will and I don't care to get into the business of trying to decide which ones will and which won't, not at that minuscule benefit of doing so.

As for the tangential topic cite web vs. cite news, it's true that it makes no difference in what readers see; on the other hand lots of good things we do in citation coding (parameter spacing, etc) make no difference in what readers see, so that's not a good test in itself. The current template guidance says to use cite news for web-based news sources, so I do so. But I feel less strongly about this and would be happy to convert all cite news to cite web at this article if there is a consensus for that. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

To wade further into the technical weeds, it's the rendered HTML that gets downloaded, not the wikitext that we deal with on a daily basis. It only takes four characters to create a wikilink, but the resulting HTML is far longer – and the HTML page is far larger than our 495 kB file size. I don't know of an easy way to determine exactly how much HTML would be saved by unlinking these items, and it might be useful to know that. On the other hand, download time is becoming less critical as the speeds of devices, cable internet connections, and cell networks increase. I don't have a smartphone, but I believe many smartphone owners are streaming videos these days, relatively glitch-free. That trend can only continue. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

HTML for |work=The New York Times:
<i>The New York Times</i>
HTML for |work=[[The New York Times]]:
<i><a href="/wiki/The_New_York_Times" title="The New York Times">The New York Times</a></i>
Thus linking NYT in a cite costs 66 bytes of HTML, and all 165 NYT links combined cost 10,890 bytes of HTML. Unless I'm reading the information incorrectly in Firefox (that's possible, as I'm not a web developer), the current total HTML size is 5.72 MB. 10,890 bytes is about 0.2% of that, so we can reasonably estimate that unlinking NYT in all cites would improve download time by about 0.2% (one-fifth of one percent, for the math-challenged). If you added in the source links in all other cites, you might get that up to slightly over one percent. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

This 10,890 bytes/0.2% estimate is likely way too high due to HTTP compression, see below. Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@HaeB: Ok, but it's easily low enough. I could use confirmation of that 5.72 MB number, if you have a way to do that. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Webpagetest.org is a popular tool for that, I just ran the article through it. It says that there were 340,354 bytes of HTML transferred (compressed, uncompressing to 1,879,048 bytes on the reader's device), out of 1,319 KB total (compressed) for the entire article including images etc.

Either way, whether 0.2% or (more likely, see below) something like 0.03%, I agree that the savings are minuscule. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@HaeB: Come to think of it, the HTTP compression would reduce the total HTML size by roughly the same percentage, and that pretty much moots your point. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure I'm following, what do you mean by "the HTTP compression would reduce the total HTML size by roughly the same percentage"?

My point is that "all 165 NYT links combined cost 10,890 bytes of HTML" is not true as a statement about the amount of data that needs to be transferred over the internet. The second link and all following ones will add the same 66 bytes (characters, actually), which the compression algorithm should detect and replace by a reference to the first occurrence ("repeat these 66 bytes"). If that takes two additional bytes each time, say, cutting out these 164 repetitive NYT links would end up saving only 2 * 164 = 328 bytes.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I see. I didn't know the compression worked like that. I'm inclined to believe that ordinary editors would be wise to refrain completely from discussions about performance (like much of this one). ―Mandruss ☎ 07:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Is there a bot that can strip the brackets from the source and author? -- Valjean (talk) 00:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Unlikely, and I think you mean script. Anyway the author links don't use the brackets because they are implied by the parameter itself, eg |authorlink=Maggie Haberman. If you don't want a link, you don't code the parameter. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, I don't understand all the ins and outs of this, but the Steele dossier article has 449 refs, all using this format. (I'm a bit anal about uniform formatting.) It would take a long time to manually fix them. Fortunately I have rarely used the authorlink parameter. -- Valjean (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

References

With creative use of my browser's Find function (eg finding work=[[ would locate all source links in |work= parameters), I could probably remove all source links and all author links in 1–2 hours, assuming no edit conflicts during that time (in the wee hours my time, when I'm often awake anyway). And I would reluctantly do so if there were a consensus for it. So that's not an issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's how I would do it. Feel free to start, but do a few and then leave an edit summary asking for some peace there for a couple of hours. That way I, or anyone else, am less likely to disturb you. -- Valjean (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to start - I'm not starting anything without a consensus. And you can put an {{in use}} template at the top of the article "asking for some peace" and estimating how long you will need it. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

If you mean uniform formatting across articles, that's a non-starter. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree. It is only on that article that I have done it. Many, if not most, of my edits there have been that type of stuff. -- Valjean (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I guess I am not really seeing much of a possible benefit while I am seeing a possible harm. So why do it? PackMecEng (talk) 02:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Do what? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

For removing the links from refs. I can see a negative for the reader, just not seeing much of a positive. PackMecEng (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please explain. We don't want to cause harm, just cut down on total bytes and download time without actually deleting content. -- Valjean (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It's a good idea to think about how to make life easier for readers who access this article over slow connections. But the assumption underlying this proposal, namely that these links "presumably [inhibit] page loading times by quite a bit" seems highly speculative and likely wrong. For starters, WMF sites use gzip HTTP compression (which today is supported by basically every browser), and gzip is good at eliminating overhead from repeating content. There are other aspects to how users experience web performance and I just pinged the Wikimedia Performance Team in case any of them would enjoy weighing in in this discussion with general guidance. But we should not make content decisions based on lay speculations about potential performance benefits.

What's more, the The New York Times example is an extreme one, both in how frequently this wikilink occurs in this article and how likely readers are to already be familiar with the publication. Most other wikilinks used in the references (say David Fahrenthold) are likely to be much more valuable to readers and occur much less frequently in this article.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Someone changed work to newspaper, but it looks like this has been self-reverted. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed shortening of one sentence in the lead section

Any thoughts on shortening a statement in the lead section as follows?

CURRENT VERSION: 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.

PROPOSED NEW VERSION: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics.

This would go down from 33 words to 22 words; it would preserve the most important bits (i.e., the level/rate of falsehoods is unprecedented) while omitting the unremarkable/obvious (the fact that these falsehoods have been documented - obviously they have been or else we wouldn't be making a reference to it in the Wikipedia bio). Neutrality^talk 01:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

This seeks to alter #Current consensus #35.

the fact that these falsehoods have been documented - obviously they have been or else we wouldn't be making a reference to it in the Wikipedia bio - I'd disagree with that statement. We might be saying that because reliable sources have said that without any documented fact-checking (or at least without anything remotely approaching the scale of what WaPo et al have done). We do that kind of thing all the time. We generally don't require sources to prove the truth of what they say. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• On the actual proposed rewording, do you support or oppose? It was not clear to me from your comment. Neutrality^talk 13:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

That's because I'm waiting for other comments. I could even end up abstaining, and you'll know that by the absence of a bullet with my name on it. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I would like to see some discussion about the need for "the media have widely described" wrt NPOV. And whether the change is due to a change in situation or due to differences in policy interpretation. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Minor note..."his campaign" is singular, whereas he has had two campaigns now. (Though "false and misleading statements" doesn't begin to cover the situation...) Perhaps an opportunity to finally change "The statements have been..." to "The misinformation has been..." Bdushaw (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support the proposal with "campaign" changing to "campaigns". I've long thought the extra stuff was really just there to deter edit warring, but as long as it is clearly spelled out in the body of the article I don't see the need for the longer version. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• That's a good catch. I just changed "campaign" to "campaigns" --Neutrality^talk 13:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support. No need to tiptoe around the facts. François Robere (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support this improvement. It's a fact, so say it plainly. -- Valjean (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support This is definitely an improvement. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support The statement is accurate with no need to substantiate it. Gandydancer (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not seeing a need to overturn long standing and well participated consensus.[1] PackMecEng (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  There is no need. I have no idea why this is even being discussed now. Efcharisto (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Economy is always good. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  Trump said this is the best economy ever. Question: That comma bothers me, but I see why the wording felt awkward without it. Is there a way to improve the sentence structure? SPECIFICO talk 17:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the comma seems awkward because the sentence ought to begin with "To a degree..." Bdushaw (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose so blithely replacing a consensus resulting from an RfC that was open for six weeks and ran to over 10,000 words. I wonder why the decision is so much easier this time. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  Note that discussion was closed in February 2019. François Robere (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  Why? Because in the 18 months since the press and numerous recent books have resolved any doubts they formerly may have held. SPECIFICO talk 20:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  Quoting Paul Krugmann: Of course, we’re learning that Donald Trump and those around him lie about everything and don’t care at all about endangering other people. But that’s more of a confirmation than a revelation — we basically already knew that, although we didn’t expect such graphic evidence. I wonder why the statement is restricted to the two official campaigns and the presidency. This is his general bio, not the "Presidency of" article, and he's been making documented false statements since at least the 80s. If we remove the fact-checkers, shouldn't we remove the campaigns and the presidency, as well, and simply say that he's made many false and misleading statements before and during his presidency (to be changed to "before, during and after his presidency" sooner or later?) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  The question is whether sources provide a statement to that effect. If you can provide enough sources that do, then we can. François Robere (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

One of the things the statement says implicitly is that he is lying while president. It is one thing to lie as a real estate developer or steak salesman, another to lie to the American public as president about such things as pandemic response. Perhaps the statement ought to more explicitly reflect this more consequential lying as president? I note that since the original statement was included in the lead, the section on Veracity was substantially expanded. Bdushaw (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• I would support total removal from the lead. I would also support changing the proposed removed wording into a footnote. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support the proposed change. Regarding the former RfC, I note that the process can be rather bizarre, and not altogether logical. The existing sentence has, essentially, "weasel words" in "the media have widely described" - we have had considerable recent discussion on the use of such words (and recalling my recent RfC where my attempt to use such words in a misguided attempt a compromise went over like a lead balloon), with the solid consensus that they should be avoided. Just state the thing; the problem in this case is that just stating the thing is to use Wikivoice to convey a clear flaw in Trump, which gets perceived badly, by some. The proposed wording states the facts clearly and economically. I suspect for better English the sentence ought to start with "To a degree unprecedented...", however. Bdushaw (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support: precision and concision are beautiful things soibangla (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment It might be worthwhile to try a different sentence structure, to avoid "to a degree..." Something like:

KICKING AROUND IDEAS VERSION: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, a tactic unprecedented in American politics.

Or using a semicolon to make a substantive statement about how unprecedented the misinformation is (corrosion of democracy?). Bdushaw (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

"Tactic" is interpretational, suggests planning. François Robere (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting it was unplanned? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't like the alternative wording. I disagree that tactics imply "planning", because a tactic can be reactionary. Planning would imply a "strategy", but I would argue Trump's lies are habitual and are only occasionally part of some sort of overall strategy, otherwise we would have reliable sources to support the idea Trump's lies are part of a plan. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Trump has made more false and misleading statements than any other American president or presidential candidate in history. SPECIFICO talk 20:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  Do you have a WP:RS for that? Or is it alternative wording you are proposing? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  Isn't that a paraphrase of the initial suggestion above? However, I think this is better: Trump has made more false and misleading statements than any other president or presidential candidate in American history SPECIFICO talk 17:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

KICKING AROUND IDEAS VERSION: The many false and misleading statements Trump has made during his campaigns and presidency are unprecedented in American politics. ??? Bdushaw (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

KICKING AROUND IDEAS VERSION: The degree of false or misleading statements made by Trump during his campaigns and presidency is unprecedented in American politics. ??? (need "or" rather than "and") Bdushaw (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality's wording is correct: "to a degree unprecedented". "All politicians lie", but Trump doesn't just lie more than others, he rarely tells the truth. He is in a different universe, where hardly a single molecule of truth exists. It's a foreign concept to him. -- Valjean (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom, as well. I let the issue sit overnight, and the nom's original proposal seems best. I thought of changing "many" to "an extraordinary number" ("torrent"?), but we perhaps should not belabor the issue. But it should be "false OR misleading". Bdushaw (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, regretfully since I rarely disagree with Neutrality. Even as the sentence is we are constantly getting complaints about it at the talk page. If we change it to a simple assertion in Wikipedia's voice, without any explanation about what we are basing it on, we will be getting dozens of complaints a day, every day - and to some extent they will be justified. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  We should never be concerned about the number of unjustified complaints, but I don't necessarily disagree with to some extent they will be justified. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  I totally disagree with "let's go ahead and change the article in a way that will justifiably offend lots of readers, rather than keeping it as it is giving the basis for our statement." As you know, we hashed out the existing wording over a long period of time, and it has been stable for several years now if I recall correctly. The existing wording makes it clear: this is not something we are saying arbitrarily or because we are biased; we are saying it because is one of his most defining characteristics and there is overwhelming evidence for it. The proposed wording WOULD sound like we are saying it arbitrarily or because we are biased. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  The article is loaded with things that sound like we are biased – to readers who don't understand our policies (and some editors who don't understand our policies). The only question for me is how to best comply with those policies – and they are so vague, convoluted, and seemingly self-contradictory that there is no clear answer, leaving things wide open to editor bias. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  @MelanieN: - the existing wording has a problem though. It's not only the media which is saying that Trump's behaviour is unprecedented. It's academics. The mega-citation with the bundled references has six instances of that: (1) McGranahan is an academic source, (2) the NYT source refers to the historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, (3) the WaPo source refers to presidential historian Michael R. Beschloss, (4) the LA Times source refers to political scholar George Edwards, (5) the Toronto Star refers to presidential historian Douglas Brinkley, and (6) Skjeseth is also an academic sources. Given that academics believe that Trump's behaviour is unprecedented, I believe that Wikipedia can reflect it in wiki-voice. Does this change your view? starship.paint (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

  No, it doesn't. Thanks for spelling all this out, Starship, and I'm glad it is in the article text. However, it does not make "Trump is an unprecedented liar" into the factual equivalent of "the sky is blue". IMO we need to supply support, even in the lead, for such an inflammatory statement. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Factcheckers have confirmed that Trump has made more false and misleading statements than any other president in American history. -- Isn't that readily Verifiable? SPECIFICO talk 20:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, but, per policy, not all that is verifiable must be included in an article, let alone in its lead. If it's included, policy is sufficiently vague (flexible) that editors can reasonably disagree about how to word it. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  Huh? This discussion is about shortening it, not removing longstanding consensus content. Emir asked to be sure it's Verified. Yes it is. SPECIFICO talk 21:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  It helps to put replies in context, or use {{tq}}.

  Not to put too fine a point on it, but the fact-checkers (WaPo, Toronto Star, et al) have not actually compared Trump to his predecessors. I don't know that anybody has at the item level, as if that were even possible or useful given that presidents haven't always made multiple public statements per day that were immediately fact-checked. That wasn't even feasible until the widespread use of computers, roughly 1980s (or maybe advent of the internet, mid-1990s). Any "verifiability" we have that Trump is unprecedented is from sources other than the fact-checker databases, and we accept their analysis without actual proof. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  Then why do we currently say that in the article? I don't recall being involved in the initial consensus, because at the time I did not feel comfortable with what might have sounded partisan. However MelanieN without discounting your argument, I think it is the case that the press has been more willing, over the course of the most recent year, to emphasize Trump's false statements and even to call them lies. And we have a number of books in the past year that go into great detail on it. SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  Then why do we currently say that in the article? That's my point, which may have been unclear. I was responding only to your bolded comment, and the article does not currently say that Trump's "unprecedence" has been confirmed by fact-checkers. It says that the media have widely described Trump as unprecedented and the false and misleading statements have been documented by fact-checkers – not the same thing. You may be equating fact-checkers with reliable sources, and I'm not. That was not the intent of the phrase in the 2019 discussion, as I understood it. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  No, actually for the purpose of the current discussion, it is the same thing. Otherwise, you should have shared your concern at the top of the thread. Let's stay focused on the matter at hand. SPECIFICO talk 23:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• Alternative: "Media outlets have widely considered Trump as largely unprecedent in making false and misleading statements during his 2016 election campaign and his presidency." We could do with sounding a lot more neutral about the matter, and not seeming like Wikipedia shares that a view, while also being far more concise. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• I would strongly oppose that. The fact of Trump's unprecedented level of false and misleading statements is a fact, not a "view," and we do not hedge on that. Neutrality^talk 01:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I never said it was a view. It should be paramount that Wikipedia appears neutral. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

You wrote that you wished to avoid "seeming like Wikipedia shares that view." Neutrality^talk 04:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Neutrality: No worries, what I meant was that it seems like Wikipedia has a view. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, Wikipedia (that's us) is not supposed to choose sides, but it is unabashedly, because of our RS policy, on the side of RS when there is no doubt about a matter. Wikipedia (editors) is unabashedly on the side of the fact that the sky is blue and that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale. That's not opinion or a "view", it's a well-established fact backed by the vast preponderance of RS and huge amounts of measurable data. Few facts are more firmly established by data and data analysis. You can bank on this, because experience has taught us that, quoting David Zurawik, we should "just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backwards" because he's a "habitual liar".

You see, facts are not like opinions. They aren't mushy. They can withstand the onslaught of fact checkers and scientific analysis. They are falsifiable. They survive. Our duty is to make sure we don't present facts as opinions (and the converse). This is about the fact that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale and manner, and opinions that doubt that fact have little due weight and should only get passing mention. NPOV does require we document disagreement with that fact, but due weight tells us to do so in a very limited manner.

Wikipedia is a reality-based encyclopedia. It is neutral when it documents what RS say, even if what RS say appears to be biased (to the uninformed). NPOV requires that we document that bias and not censor or neuter it. Bias isn't always bad, and it's actually good to be biased for the facts. The facts are not central in politics, but are often held more firmly by one side more than the other, hence the famous quote "Reality has a well known liberal bias", or, as Paul Krugman put it, "Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias". -- Valjean (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia (editors) is unabashedly on the side of the fact that the sky is blue and that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale. There are a number of editors who are unable to check their POV about this at the door. Somehow that POV never makes it into mainspace, which suggests that "Wikipedia (editors)" is not unabashedly on the side of it, your view notwithstanding. Apparently "Wikipedia (editors)" feels that such strong statements are not supportable by Wikipedia policy. I happen to agree that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale, as well as a number of other really bad things, but I know my opinion is irrelevant here and it's crucial to understand that. I save that for discussions among family and friends. I happen to agree that RS supports the kind of content currently in this article about that, but that is quite different from wildly irresponsible statements about blue sky "fact" that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that not all Wikipedia editors are on the side of RS. I would never state in Wikipedia's voice that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale., but our sources would justify saying that Trump has made many false or misleading statements on a scale described as "unprecedented" in American politics. -- Valjean (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

If you would never state that in an article, to say it on an article talk page is to voice your POV opinion, violating NOTFORUM and distracting from policy-based discussion. Not to mention at least giving the strong impression that you are unable to leave your POV out of content decisions. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Neutrality. Let's reboot and get back to the source for the "unprecedented" wording. It isn't used in a willy nilly fashion.

• It has long been a truism that politicians lie, but with the entry of Donald Trump into the U.S. political domain, the frequency, degree, and impact of lying in politics are now unprecedented [...] Donald Trump is different. By all metrics and counting schemes, his lies are off the charts. We simply have not seen such an accomplished and effective liar before in U.S. politics. Bolding added.

That is the sense in which we should continue to use the word. Trump isn't even close to anyone else. He's off the charts dishonest. -- Valjean (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

References

You are far from the only offender, but statements like Trump isn't even close to anyone else. He's off the charts dishonest. are pure POV and have no place in any Wikipedia content discussion. That one simultaneously cites one source – or a hundred sources – does not make that appropriate. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me for agreeing with RS and paraphrasing them. -- Valjean (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The point is that:

• Whether you or I agree with RS is completely irrelevant for our purposes, as Wikipedia editing is not about our opinions.
• You didn't say you were paraphrasing RS, you presented it as objective fact. Those are not the same thing.

This is not hair-splitting. What we say affects how we think about these things, and that makes it important. In my view it also demonstrates how we're thinking about them. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: Then let's say Media outlets have widely considered Trump as largely unprecedented in making false and misleading statements during his 2016 election campaign and his presidency., because this is what reliable sources say. We shouldn't go beyond objective reliable sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

That wording is grammatially awkward, at least to my American ears. Above I suggested that our sources would justify saying that Trump has made many false or misleading statements on a scale described as "unprecedented" in American politics. I have stricken "many" as "scale" covers that aspect. "Described" refers to the fact that sources do this so we don't need to mention them. When we say the "sky is blue", we don't say that "reliable sources say the sky is blue." -- Valjean (talk) 05:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: I agree with that wording, with some minor changes. Trump has made misleading and false statements on a scale described as "unprecedented" by various media outlets. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose this change as a way to backdoor a controversial claim into Wikivoice. How many lies did Andrew Jackson tell? There is no way to have this material without attribution because there is no way to actually prove it. It will lead to endless disruption on the article and talk page as drive by readers and editors change it to something else. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

  Far from endless disruption, changes to consensus content are easily reverted without counting against 1RR. Persistent re-reverting by the "drive by" would earn a DS block, although that never happens when they are referred to the ArbCom restrictions and/or the #Current consensus list; the first revert is almost always enough. This has been proven to be a non-issue at this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

  And I haven't seen any readers who have WP:ECP status. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

  Since the RfC on this statement, which was prior to the pandemic, yes?, there has been a significant change in the landscape. There are new sources, e.g., 'You’re Gonna Beat It.' How Donald Trump’s COVID-19 Battle Has Only Fueled Misinformation or From COVID-19 to voting: Trump is nation's single largest spreader of disinformation, studies say I would say a revisit to the consensus statement is warranted, in any case. An important factor here is he is acting as the nation's leader with this misinformation - which is different than misinformation at other times. The lead statement should reflect that factor (drop "campaign", ignore misinformation prior to presidency?) As I've noted before, Trump's use of misinformation is one of his most notable characteristics; certainly a suitable, definitive statement in the lead is necessary. Voting and Covid-19 could be noted as two primary topics of misinformation. Bdushaw (talk) 07:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

  We could abandon "unprecedented" and its complications for a statement like:

KICKING AROUND IDEAS VERSION: While president, Trump has made many false or misleading statements, becoming a significant source of disinformation on voting practices and pandemic responses in 2020.

(Interesting to note the difference between "disinformation" and "misinformation" in this context.) Bdushaw (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

This fails to describe the outstanding nature of his falsehoods and misleading comments. Over long careers, plenty of politicians will have made "many false or misleading statements". starship.paint (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you are right - it is a curious problem how to describe, in a NPOV way, such incessant, voluminous disinformation and propaganda. I am not sure "unprecedented" does it either, while being a lightening rod for objections. I find I am, frankly, at a loss.

Bdushaw (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Could a statement like:

KICKING AROUND IDEAS VERSION: To promote or defend his image, policies or projects, Trump has regularly employed incessant, aggressive campaigns of falsehoods, disinformation or propaganda in public rallies and on radio, television, print or social media.

be supported? I believe this is getting closer to the truth of the matter, maybe. Bdushaw (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

(Needs three serial commas per convention in this article. Following policies, disinformation, and print. Best to get such minute details taken care of before the text makes it into the consensus list, not after.) ―Mandruss ☎ 19:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

At this point, our efforts are in retrograde, with each attempt worse than the preceding. I think we should leave the current text alone. None of the subsequent attempts is without problems. The first one (that I foolishly criticised for a misplaced comma) was OK, and there seemed to be consensus for that one. I would not object to using that one, but it's clear there's a little too much meaning to be gracefully crammed into a single sentence. Let's go with v.1 or v.0. SPECIFICO talk 21:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, well, perhaps my thrashing was still a useful exercise...people have been complaining how we never think outside the box. :) I have no objection to Neutrality's PROPOSED NEW VERSION, which I think is an improvement, given the difficulties. I think including "factcheckers" is of no value now; I have modest objections to the troubles "unprecedented" raises (also based on the troubles we had with the word on another article Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy; first sentence), but know of no better alternative (I tried, as all can see). As an aside, I noted the article is rather weak at describing Trump's use of political rallies during his campaigns and presidency. Such rallies are part of Trump's identity. Bdushaw (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

While I agree on the revised statement, a continued discussion of it is still warranted, IMO - the statement falls well short in that it misrepresents what are deliberate, massive campaigns of disinformation (following the Russian model?). I revise the statement above, just for kicks, and give a few citations on the massive disinformation campaigns that are going on, and have gone on. Its quite a bit more than what Donald Trump says or tweets out from time-to-time; its industrialized disinformation. All not unrelated to his hour-long call ins to friendly radio or TV programs.

KICKING AROUND IDEAS VERSION: To promote or defend his image, views or policies, Trump has employed aggressive campaigns of falsehoods, disinformation or propaganda in public rallies and on radio, television, or social media.

Billion dollar disinformation/Atlantic, Misinformation Machine/Sci. American, Trump's billion-dollar "Death Star"/Salon, Disinformation machine/CNN etc. The attacks on basic science are particularly disturbing, and have been notice. Bdushaw (talk) 11:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Okay, skimming over the above, it seems that this is (unsurprisingly) leading to a lot of discussion about potential modifications to the clause. Trying to stay on topic, I'd suggest a guiding question might be this: Would it be possible to make the passage more concise without fundamentally altering its meaning?

The concerns raised above about the switch to Wikipedia's voice are reasonable enough to warrant consideration, but they apply only to the "unprecedented" part, since the first part is already present in the page. That'd leave us with something like Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree the media has widely described as unprecedented in American politics. But for that, the distinction between what's widely present in secondary sources and what we're willing to state in Wikipedia's voice shouldn't exist, since per WP:V/WP:NOR/other core policies, Wikipedia's voice is supposed to reflect what's been widely present in secondary sources. So that leads to Neutrality's proposal. It might seem like it's saying something stronger, but fundamentally it's really not; it's just cutting out statements that don't need to be there. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding "unprecedented": The first bullet at WP:WIKIVOICE reads:

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."

Does widespread RS agreement make "unprecedented" a "fact" for the purposes of this bullet? Apparently not, or we wouldn't have the passage "However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be [...] where justified, described as widespread views, etc." Since it's entirely unproveable, "unprecedented" will always be an "opinion" for the purposes of this bullet, despite the fact that the opinion is widely held. So I disagree that that qualification doesn't need to be there. In any case, there is nothing factually incorrect about the status quo language and we are beating our heads against a wall in an effort to save 11 words in the lead, a lead that many or most editors insist is not overly long. Those 11 words certainly do not constitute undue weight for this issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding deletions of medical journal addition

It goes without saying that Melanie is one of our most knowledgeable editors and as always I value her judgement. But I would like to discuss the delete of my Covig-19 pandemic section addition. By profession and my WP editing I am part of the medical profession, so I do possibly hold a bias on the importance of what the medical profession has to say about this presidency as we watch the deaths and other social consequences of this pandemic rise far above that of most other developed countries. IMO, since we have a section titled COVID-19 pandemic, should we not note what the medical community has to say about Trump's position? When the New England Journal of Medicine, widely believed to be the most prestigious medical journal in the world, speaks out for the first time in their over 200 years of existence, and the article has the signatures of every one of their editors, as happened only three times in their history, should not that be included in a section that has taken so many American lives, including according to their estimate, thousands more than it should have taken if he would have responded appropriately? Gandydancer (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Just so I am sure I am following correctly, this has to do with this revert right? PackMecEng (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Let's not lose sight of the fact that this article is a biography of Trump, not an exploration of every political issue connected to Trump. Repeatedly, we feel the need to create a section about issue X because it happened under Trump's watch, and then the issue takes on a life of its own. We simply do not have the space for that kind of approach, and we need less detail about presidency-related content in this article. This should be taken to other articles for consideration, as MelanieN suggested. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems like a good fit for Presidency of Donald Trump. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't deserve its own section but should be included in the main COVID-19 section. Also, the COVID-19 section is too long. It should begin by saying that Trump's response was widely criticized, then summarize in one or two paragraphs what happened. TFD (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem too long and when I entered this here I felt it certainly was as important as all that other stuff. I think that Scjessey may be right to include it at the Trump presidency article (and shorten this section?). Gandydancer (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I felt it certainly was as important as all that other stuff. Exactly. See slippery slope. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

If this were a routine political endorsement, I would agree it does not belong in the bio article. But this and some of the other recent comments on his fitness for office are reflections on him personally and can be briefly mentioned in this article. SPECIFICO talk 23:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that it's worth considering that thought. The Scientific American, again a first in their almost 200 years of publishing, also put out an editorial condemning Trump and urging a vote for Biden.[2] They are, it seems, making political statements because they realize that there may still be time to turn around the damage done by Trump's anti-science policies but four more years and it may be too late. I returned to the Trump presidential article where I first did not put it because I didn't see where it would fit, but I still could not find a place to put it. I did tuck it somewhere but that article gets only around 300 hits a day and to me that seems almost a disgraceful thing to do considering the gravity of their decision to make political statements. Gandydancer (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Right, that confirms my past claims that material is put in this article because of its high visibility, not because it would belong here otherwise. That's a misuse of the encyclopedia in my view. If this article were being used appropriately, readers would soon enough learn to follow {{Main}} and {{Further}} hatnote links – as they are intended to be used – and your 300 hits would be higher. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. This article must reflect what is biographically significant to Donald Trump, rather than what might be important to the world he inhabits. Obviously there's going to be some overlap, but I would argue this article has many things that shouldn't really be here. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

reflections on him personally - I'd be more receptive to that argument if the people making it were interested in removing some of the content that does not meet that definition. Like most of the Foreign policy section, for starters. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes! In fact, I will make a proposal below. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Mandruss but it is true of many of our articles, not just this one. Everyone is this discussion is pretty well-seasoned to the ways of this place and is well aware of the reasons this tends to happen, which I won't get into right now. But back to the coronavirus problem... Again, I'm going to harp away at this: When our two most prestigious medical/science journals place the blame squarely on Trump for a large part of this hellish situation we find ourselves in, we need to highlight it in our encyclopedia as well, IMO. I fully agree that this article is not the place to get deeply into the virus information and that the section should be cut to only a short mention with a see also note. I'd like to see short mention of the two journals but am aware that others may not agree to that. I'd also like to see the (poorly named) Communication section from the U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic article split out to its own article as I believe that it contains most of the stuff we've got here. Gandydancer (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I not sure that this belongs here. Unsurprisingly, the NYTimes appears to say this Journal is laying ALL the blame on the Trump Administration, and while obstensively they may very well be doing so, the actual editorial published by the NE Journal of Medicine lays the blame at least partly in the hands of some Governors.[3] Also, oddly, I see nothing in the Journal paper examining the fact that while the US was slow in testing and is still slow in providing test results, the US has tested over a third of the population, a stat few other countries can claim and that of course will equate with MORE positives in all liklihood. I also see no examination that the death rate in the US is no worse than in the UK, France, Italy, Belgium and Spain, all first world nations with comparable medical capabilities to the US. Also dispute their reliance on Chinese figures as this has been disputed by many.[4]--MONGO (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that after reading the actual NEJM article, it is blaming leaders in general at the federal and state levels, not even mentioning the President a single time. Frankly, although we list The New York Times as a reliable source in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, this an example of The New York Times not being a reliable source. The title of The New York Times article "In a First, New England Journal of Medicine Joins Never-Trumpers" is completely misleading. I think the right place to mention this would be in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_England_Journal_of_Medicine or if it can be folded into an existing sentence in the Presidency of Donald Trump article that might also make sense. The Scientific American article endorsing Biden is another story, and I think that deserves to be mentioned in a new sentence here or the Presidency of Donald Trump article. Efcharisto (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@ MONGO I don't agree with any of your assessments but this is not the place to get into an argument about the NYT or the NEJM. Gandydancer (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@MONGO: - this line in the full editorial makes it clear that the main culprit is the federal government, not the governors: But whatever their competence, governors do not have the tools that Washington controls. Instead of using those tools, the federal government has undermined them. starship.paint (talk) 09:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• With apologies to those on this topic, I note that I recently added the endorsements of the NEJM and Scientific American to the "False Statements" section. I did not realize/did not note that the issue was under discussion here; my failing. I thought the endorsements by these reputable institutions provided support for the substantial disinformation and supported the final paragraph of the section regarding the weakening of liberal democracy. I let the community decide what to do about these recent edits; perhaps they were out of line. Bdushaw (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a particularly notable endorsement so it doesn't belong in this article at all. This barely rates as a news article, when there are thousands and thousands of news articles written about Donald Trump. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Summary style for Foreign policy

I believe the Foreign Policy section needs to be dramatically reduced as part of an overall strategy of sensible reduction. The vast majority of it is "important" in that it is well covered in reliable sources, but almost none of it is biographically significant to Donald Trump when taken in the context of his entire life. We have an excellent article at Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration that includes most, if not all the relevant material already, and we link to it. We do not need to duplicate its content here. The parts that are significant to Trump's presidency are ALSO properly covered in Presidency of Donald Trump. So my proposal, in a nutshell, is this:

• Keep the first paragraph of the section's introduction.
• Delete everything else in the section entirely, taking care to make sure its content is in either Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration, Presidency of Donald Trump, or both.

I'm sure you will all agree this is pretty radical, but I would argue it fully embraces what the summary style guideline is trying to achieve, which this rather unwieldy article really needs. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The suggestion makes sense; there have been other recent edits adopting this strategy. Be careful of the citations, of course, that none deleted are used elsewhere. It would be nice to try to retain all the "See Also" links in the revision, perhaps a table or, dare I say it, a list. Might be appropriate to retain a brief discussion of Trump's views on NATO. Bdushaw (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Note that the lead will also likely have to be revised/reduced as well, since it is meant to reflect the content of the article body. Bdushaw (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

You're right, and that should reduce paragraph 4 by about 30%. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Okey dokey. I am up to my eyeballs with stuff today and tomorrow, but I might be able to look into it on Sunday. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

To those who are working on cutting the article now -- Are you sure you're not making the same mistake that started the last round of cutting, confusing code lentgth for word count. Are you sure it's the article text and not reference templates that are the bulk of the bit count? I'm concerned about cutting material that relates to Trump the man, his personal style and unique approaches to governance. Those facts are widely noted and relate to his biography much more than a recitation of dates and events, e.g. the wrestling stuff that I was recently removed without apparent objection. Love letters w. Kim, caging dark skinned infants, etc. is noteworthy description of Trump the man, regardless of whether these events also related to US governance and policy. And by the way, the latter is by no means clear. SPECIFICO talk 20:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Multiple sections of this article need to be given a summary treatment. Right now this article reads as if both Trump-lovers and Trump-haters have spent months trying to include every single piece of information in this article which is inappropriate. The reason this article is so long as it stands is because people threw summary style out the window. The parent article should have general summary information, and child articles should expand in more detail on subtopics summarized in the parent article - this is not happening here. There is absolutely no reason that section on foreign policy with its own article should have any detail on the policy - it should summarize the foreign policy succinctly without getting into specifics. Another quote: Sometimes editors will add details to a summary section without adding those facts to the more detailed article. To keep articles synchronized, editors should first add any new material to the appropriate places in the detailed article, and, if appropriate, summarize the material in the summary section - this has happened here so much that it's insane. Everyone wants "their wording" or "their facts" in this article - and others don't challenge them on it enough. I commend any attempt to return the sections of this page to summary style by anyone and encourage new additions to this page to be heavily scrutinized to determine if they are in line with summary style or not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Well said. I do not think the problem is necessarily with Trump-lovers and Trump-haters though, but people obsessed with including every little bit of news. Me I do enjoy Wikipedia, but I am aware WikiNews is a separate project. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Well said. With a bit more support, maybe we can get this article fixed by around the time that it doesn't matter much anymore. On the bright side, maybe we'll learn something and avoid making the same mistake with his successor's BLP. Or maybe not. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: "Are you sure you're not making the same mistake that started the last round of cutting, confusing code length for word count." Actually, my motivation has absolutely nothing to do with article length or word count. It is entirely to do with the fact that almost none of the foreign policy section is biographically significant. It is significant to America. It is significant to the world. It is significant according to reliable sources. But it is not significant when trying to summarize Trump's entire life. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

This is the point we were trying to make with #Current consensus #37. That failed for two reasons:

• Editors didn't understand what was meant by "summary-level". When that was clarified, too late, the feeling was "That's not what I supported."
• Certain broad areas like foreign policy "have a lasting impact on his [...] long-term presidential legacy", so once that condition was met editors felt they had a green light to include anything they wanted in those areas. That was not the intent of the proposal, either. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to have one paragraph, but I don't think that the existing first paragraph is any good for this purpose. I find it hard to accept that Trump's foreign policy is not at all biographically significant. We need a summary of what he's done. I think the size of the article is due to the fact that it was already large, and then, since he's been president, editors have added as much news as they can. And it's the Trump haters who are mostly to blame. I don't think any Trump lover has had any impact on this article, except for a brief rant on the Talk page. It's editors who think they've found a smoking gun and need to reveal it to the world.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: This is both plain wrong and unnecessarily divisive. It's true of EVERY biography of a particularly notable individual that editors will tend to bloat it. Frankly, assigning blame in the way that you have is a violation of the editing restrictions we have here. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I've got a perfect right to identify what I think is the editing problem here. The Lafayette Square incident is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, the first sentence is not a reasonable characterization of his statements or actions, and its sources are from long before the actions in office that have defined his approach to foreign affairs. SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate and support Scjessey's intention - this section can and should be streamlined. But foreign policy is a central part of any presidency (especially because US presidents have much more leeway there than in other policy areas), and Trump's presidency is the most important part of this article. Reducing the section to just one paragraph would mean that this topic area is not given its due weight. Recall also that per WP:SUMMARY, this article needs to be able to stand on its own as a self-contained unit.

One good approach to separating the wheat from the chaff in this section would be to distinguish things that Trump said from things that he actually did, and reduce coverage of the former. To take one example from the "ISIS, Syria, and Turkey" subsection, Trump's offensive comments about the Kurds (e.g. "suggested some of them were worse than ISIS" etc.), while notable, are less important than his decision to actually abandon them as US allies, with lasting geopolitical consequences.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

That is the sort of reasoning that has produced the article's chronic size problem, and its advocates have proven unable to otherwise get the size under control despite years of discussion about it. See #Historical file size and bear in mind that readable prose size – now at 121% of the suggested maximum after a number of days of fairly aggressive trimming – is likely always roughly proportional to file size. There would be no reason to believe this will be different this time around. So we're relaxing conventional thinking in this case and allowing in new ideas. We believe the concept of "standing on its own" can mean whatever one wants it to mean – even now, much is omitted – and we think it can mean stand on its own with far less detail about foreign policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

It's unclear to me what "sort of reasoning" this is referring to precisely. I take you at your word that there have been past discussions about this article that you have found difficult and frustrating, but I would appreciate not being blamed for previous debates that I was not part of. Again, I agree that inconsequential details in this section can and should be reduced. And above I already made some concrete suggestions on how to achieve that, which I haven't yet seen a response to.

It also appears that you are conflating process and outcome here. If your point is that incremental reductions risk too much being thwarted by reverts, and prefer to proceed using something like a section-wise TNT, then that's a reasonable discussion to have. But anyone who argues that this article should not be subjected to existing content policies and guidelines like WP:NPOV, WP:SUMMARY etc., or that these should be amended with exceptions like "unless the article is about a sitting US president that is more than 20% above the recommended article size" will need to get consensus for such a policy change first. And yes, promoting the highly unusual (cf. below) view that Donald Trump's impact on US foreign policy was a negligible part of his presidency, by re-weighting this article according to that POV, would violate WP:NPOV. NPOV does not "mean whatever one wants it to mean"; rather, it has always been understood that its requirements on weighting and balance apply on the level of each individual article too. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

If your point is that incremental reductions risk too much being thwarted by reverts - No, my point is that incremental reductions have proven ineffective at keeping the article to a reasonable size, mostly because most of the article's editors are very reactive to daily headlines, turning a biography into a news summary, instead of slowing down, stepping back, and taking a longer view. Every x incremental reduction is followed by 2x new content. This fact is readily apparent in the #Historical file size graph, and it is not going to be substantially changed by further incremental reductions. Your interpretation of PAGs differs from mine, and I've found it unproductive to debate unproveable interpretations. I stand by my position and I expect you will do the same. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I had made a very concrete proposal above on how to substantially reduce this section's size by taking a longer view and addressing WP:NOTNEWS issues. It would be great if you could engage with that proposal instead of nebulously accusing me of a wrong "sort of reasoning".

Every x incremental reduction is followed by 2x new content. This fact is readily apparent ... - Even granting some rhetorical exaggeration, this is plainly wrong. Three months ago, the "Foreign policy" section had around 2430 words, two months ago, it was around 2709 words. One month ago it was down to around 2027 words, following incremental reductions by MrX (which including removing some longstanding content). Contrary to your theory, today the section is still just around 2131 words. I think you need to reexamine your assumptions about process.

Collaborating on Wikipedia is all about interpreting policies and guidelines. If, at some point during such a conversation, one finds oneself unable to formulate good arguments supporting one's own interpretation, that might be a good moment to step back and reconsider whether one is really still in alignment with the respective policies and guidelines. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to the article overall, not the foreign policy section alone, as clearly evident in my reference to the graph, which is about the article overall, not the foreign policy section alone. The graph clearly shows that surgical trimming efforts have been ineffective at controlling article size, which is the larger and more important issue here in my view. As you seem less interested in hearing me than in lecturing me, I'll bow out of this subthread now. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware that your graph is about the entire article. (And thank you for making it; it is useful information.) But if one wants to understand the effect of individual interventions (such as Mrx's September 7 trimmings) and make inferential claims (every A is followed by B...), it's more instructive to focus on the corresponding section instead. An approach that has been found to work within one section could then be extended to the entire article. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems to me that, to proceed with minimal disruption, the place to start with the proposed section revision is to first develop and agree on the first 2-3 summary paragraphs, even allowing for some temporary redundancy. With that in place, subsequent sections could be more easily deleted. Such a summary may not be easy - I've been thinking about how we have to boil down/reduce large amounts of text to simple summaries for the lead, essentially synthesizing a lot of material to a single statement. When that happens it, of necessity, looks bad for Trump and gets some blowback. Such reduction is a gray area of Wikipedia policy - one gray area is the selection and organization of material, another area is this one, the reduction of substantial text down to a summary statement; both gray areas are ripe for POV to sneak in, however well intentioned an editor may be. It suggests that the best citations to look for are those that support such broad statements or summaries. For a summary of this section, Trump's stances on NATO, Iran, Climate/Paris Accords, and China stand out as worth a mention, perhaps in the context of his general approach of undoing everything of his predecessor. ...and we're already on the slippery slope... Bdushaw (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

e.g. Trump's Obama obsession drives his foreign policy Bdushaw (talk) 10:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@HaeB: "But foreign policy is a central part of any presidency" So what? This is the article about Trump, not his presidency. Besides, it is domestic policy (stock market, tax cuts, healthcare, civil unrest, COVID) that has dominated this particular presidency, not foreign policy. All we need is one paragraph. We can spend a bit of time crafting that paragraph, but all the rest of it can go. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems you either overlooked or deliberately chose not to quote the rest of the sentence: "But foreign policy is a central part of any presidency (especially because US presidents have much more leeway there than in other policy areas), and Trump's presidency is the most important part of this article."

Your claim that foreign policy was just an insignificant part of Trump's presidency seems to be a highly questionable personal POV. This might be a good moment to recall that Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and that we have to avoid a US-centric bias even in articles about US topics. What's more, even US-based sources have frequently emphasized the historic impact of Trump's actions on the United States' standing in the world, and on international order in general. See e.g. this Politico overview from just a few days ago, or [5] ("shattered a 70-year consensus").

Again, I too am in favor of reducing unnecessary detail in this section. But reducing this article's coverage of Trump's foreign policy actions to the same amount of space as his involvement in "All County Building Supply & Maintenance Corp." (i.e. one paragraph) would be a serious NPOV violation.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. This proposed reduction goes too far. The biography of a man who is (or was) president needs information about his presidency. I also agree, that in the US President has great power and influence outside the USA, arguably more than inside it. The USA is a federal system, and the states control much of domestic policy. At the same time, the president has to negotiate with Congress in order to get his agenda across. The president cannot just murder a man in Florida, but he or she can despatch a drone to Yemen. Trump's foreign policy saw him stride the international stage, confronting nuclear-armed North Korea, for example. People in the future will want to hear about this, when reading a biography of the man. Reluctantly, I have come to the conclusion we need to accept a big article. If there are technical problems, then cut it in half, as discussed. But cutting foreign policy to one paragraph will satisfy very few people, and I don't think it will last. Any one of us could produce a shorter article, but together we will fail. We should stop trying to do the impossible.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I also think there is an assumption that Trump will lose. Well, maybe. I think many editors here have a Biden hope. But that — probably — won't mean the end of Trump's life. There might be lawsuits. He might produce more books. There will probably be more revelations about his presidency — and they might not all be good! Then we will have a section on his death and then his legacy. Probably. Unless he's like Enoch. So there is no way we can stop the noisy tidal wave of news that flows about the Don. It is an illusion that November will necessarily mark the end of the article. Some editors may wish to bathe in this November Nirvana, but I have to sound a note of warning. It's not over, and it might not be close to being over...--Jack Upland (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: "But cutting foreign policy to one paragraph..." Have you read WP:SS? By shifting foreign policy entirely to the sub article and leaving only a summary, we are actually giving more room to an important topic without burdening what should be a focused biography. And hopefully, this would be just the first of many such moves. And again, you are equating the importance of foreign policy to the presidency to importance of foreign policy to Donald Trump. The two are not equal. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think you might need to read WP:SS more thoroughly yourself, e.g. these parts:

• "Each article on Wikipedia must be able to stand alone as a self-contained unit" with regard to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This includes WP:PROPORTION, contrary to the "shifting foreign policy entirely to the sub article" logic above.
• "Where an article has lots of subtopics with their own articles, remember that the sections of the parent article need to be appropriately balanced."

you are equating the importance of foreign policy to the presidency to importance of foreign policy to Donald Trump - this seems to be a strawman; Jack Upland's second comment had specifically emphasized the relevance of non-presidency aspects to Trump's biography.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

To inform this discussion with some objective data, I took a quick look at the length of the foreign policy sections in the articles about all US presidents from the last half century:

Article section	Length (ca.)
Richard Nixon#Foreign policy	2728 words
Gerald Ford#Foreign policy	1976 words
Jimmy Carter#Foreign policy	2293 words
George H. W. Bush#Foreign affairs	1588 words
Bill Clinton#Military and foreign affairs	1782 words
George W. Bush#Foreign policy	3326 words
Barack Obama#Foreign policy	3034 words
Donald Trump#Foreign policy (current version)	2030 words
Donald Trump#Foreign policy (Scjessey's proposal)	71 words

(I left out Ronald Reagan for now, as the foreign policy content is spread across several sections in that article, but it's way over 2000 words as well.)

While precedent is of course not policy, this list illustrates that the assumption underlying the proposal, namely that the foreign policy work of US presidents should be regarded as almost entirely irrelevant to their biographies, is an extraordinary claim and needs further evidence before we can base content decisions on it. Furthermore, while it shouldn't be taken as an argument against removing material that is determined to be irrelevant, it's worth being aware that Donald Trump#Foreign policy already has below average size.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think it is reasonable to look at other presidential bios as a guide. (It would be interesting to know how much words they spend on non-presidential life. From my observation, a fair bit.) Based on that the proposed cut seems extremely unreasonable.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

No it is not reasonable to look at other presidents who did not lead high-profile and very controversial lives before becoming president. For example Obama was largely unknown before he ran for president – at 22 years younger than Trump was when he announced. This point has been made over and over at this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. There's been a lot of unexpected pushback from my proposal after some initial support. It is clear to me that much of that pushback is coming from editors focused on how the article portrays Trump ("this bad thing he did must stay in!" and "this good thing he did must stay in!"), rather than editors more concerned with the Wikipedia project as a whole. That's disappointing. I think it would best if we put this trimming on the back burner until an election result has been announced. It will be much easier to do it then. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@HaeB, Mandruss, Jack Upland, and Scjessey: We should absolutely action the 71-word proposal with a consensus here, but we can also do this in a WP:TNT way and add content again. If we divide the word count of foreign policy sections for presidents who had two terms in office by two, we would then find the section for Donald Trump to be the largest, and that's with foreign policy not being a defining characteristic of this presidency compared to some others. So for those who are concerned that 71 words is too few but are willing to see that we need to dramatically reduce the size of this article, we can move to 71 words and then come to agreements about what should be included additionally. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Is the photo op section really necessary?

Is the photo op section really necessary? This article is excessively long, and the photo op was a trivial moment in a presidency filled with similarly shocking events. There are ten sections in the Presidency section, and the photo op is one of them. Is it really notable enough to be worth that much space? Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 23:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

In theory it is not really that significant, but as it has its own article I think you will find it difficult to get consensus to remove. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The fact that it has its own article is a good reason to trim it dramatically and leave the hatnote. Pretty much the same concept as the foreign policy discussion above, but let's not bite off too much at one time. I suggest waiting until that plays out. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The consensus of editors is that this incident was the equivalent of Kristallnacht and the USA is now living under a fascist regime because Trump held a Bible upside down.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

He didn’t hold the Bible upside down, and the incident wouldn’t have been notable if he hadn’t used federal forces to clear peaceful and lawful protesters from the area to get to the church. Of course, with his new steroid-powered superpowers he could have just jumped over the protesters. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: - your judgment in the above comment is way off the mark. The photo op was terrible not because the Bible was upside down, but because peaceful protesters were forcefully cleared for it. starship.paint (talk) 08:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused: was the Bible upside down or not?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC

You really need to take a look at the cites and/or the WP article one of these days (there are pictures and videos, including the three videos in this article). No, it wasn't upside down but there were "reports" on Twitter that it was and then Fox News (repeat: FOX NEWS) reported it and Trump complained about Fox News reporting on it. And whether right side up, upside down, sideways, or flat on his head, it doesn't matter. What's important is how he got there. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

By walking on his hands?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It does seem strange to have this as its own sub-section as if it as at the same level as "Foreign policy" or "Impeachment". Efcharisto (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree it is incongruous.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It makes sense to me - extremely notable event. Feoffer (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is saying it is not notable, they are saying in comparison to the rest of the lengthy article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• It wasn't a trivial moment. He used federal forces to clear peaceful and lawful protesters from the area for an exercise in vanity. That's what dictators do. The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff felt the need to apologize for his involvement. That's not trivial, either. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  Nobody is saying it is solely trivial, they are saying in comparison to the rest of the lengthy article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I would oppose outright deletion, since a fair number of sources describe this as a "legacy-defining" moment for his presidency. For what it's worth, what occurred at Lafayette Square continues to reverberate today (see, in the last few days, this and this). Academics have commented upon this in terms of a rupture in civilian-military relations and risks to the apolitical perception of the military. Those are not unimportant things. I'm fine with demoting the section to not be top-level on par with impeachment etc. (I do agree that is odd). Neutrality^talk 16:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't support removing it, it's definitely notable. I'm gonna move it to the protests subsection, as part of the BRD. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 21:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Those are relatively unimportant things compared to most of the rest of the article's content. One line in a section about protests generally would be enough. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Thanoscar21: The Lafayette Square events and images (thanks, Neutrality for providing the link) don’t belong in the "Protests" section (which only deals with the massive protests after Trump’s election). It isn’t notable because there were protests, it is notable because of what the administration did. That’s what makes the event an outlier in this article, so far. It wasn’t the only authoritarian move by Trump (the pardons, the corruption, dismantling federal regulations, attempting to usurp legislative authority). We could basically stick most of the subsections of "Domestic policies" in a section called "Authoritarian actions" and add the Lafayette Square event to that. For now, I'm moving it into domestic policies where it isn't any more out of place than the pardons of his friends, supporters, and business associates/acquaintances. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

"Trimming", Thanoscar21, really, and hiding it in two separate edits ([6], [7])? The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark A. Milley, later apologized for accompanying Trump on the walk and thereby "creat[ing] the perception of the military involved in domestic politics". The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff apologizing for being duped by his Commander in Chief into being there is trivia to be trimmed while Trump's claim that he is an ally of peaceful protesters is somehow a vital piece of information? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

References

I've put off moving the section until I can revert the "trim" (1RR). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, from my POV, it's a biography about him, not his generals. From your POV, now, I see how it could be whitewashing. Why don't we just make a controversies section and pack a lot of stuff in there? Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 17:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanoscar21 In Trump's case there would be very little left outside that section, and I'm not a fan of controversies sections in general. We usually wind up arguing not just about the content per se, but also about whether it's controversial or not. I moved the item (with the general :) from Protests into the Domestic policies section, after Pardons. Most editors who contributed to this discussion were concerned with its level, so that's no longer a problem. It's three weeks until the election, and I concur with Mandruss to hold off until then. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

This certainly doesn't belong under "Protests". I think the problem with this is that you need a lot of words to explain the impact that this had on some people. That's why it's better dealt with by an article. This article could refer to the "Lafayette Square incident" (or something like that) and then link to that article.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I consider the six sentences the bare minimum coverage for this top article. The subsection also has a link to the long main article (Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but you're obviously wrong.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Not obvious to me, obviously. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

True. Are you really saying that that day was the most important in Trump's life???--Jack Upland (talk) 09:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I haven't said that. This article names every single authoritarian strongman he has praised, with Wikilink and a separate cite for every one of them, so mentioning his own authoritarian actions seems perfectly appropriate to me. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

If it's not the most important day in his life, how can you justify giving it more words than any other day?--Jack Upland (talk) 21:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Remove / trim to one or two sentences. Although it generated headlines, it's irrelevant fluff in the grand scheme of things, and certainly not one of the top ten subdivisions of his presidency.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• I completely agree with Amakuru. This incident should be reduced to a couple of sentences, and should not have its own subsection. The main article should be linked via a wikilink in the content. Some of the discussion here is way over the top; come on, folks, this was not dictatorship. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Trimming reverted, lacking reason

@Soibangla: Do you have any objections to my trimming here, other than it being in one edit rather than spread across several? If there are no objections then I would ask you to self-revert, or for any other editor to revert that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Can someone please restore this edit? These are constructive efforts at trimming the article, and the editor who reverted this has not given any reasons in the edit summary or in this talk page section. I would do it myself now that some time has passed but I am wary of 1RR. I won't necessarily take it as an endorsement of every alteration I made. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Of the cuts that were made (and were subsequently reverted), I take issue with a handful namely the elimination of content on (1) Trump's stated desire to "let Obamacare fail"; (2) the emphasis on coal/oil/natural gas in energy policy; and (3) the budget deficit increasing to nearly $1 trillion. These are important, highly salient elements of his tenure. Neutral on the other cuts. Neutrality^talk 00:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Neutrality: (1) That's not an especially notable quote from Trump, who has made many comments about Obamacare with about the same notability. There is still plenty of content there about his opposition to Obamacare. (2) We don't really have an energy section here, but we could mention this in conjunction with his opposition to renewable energy. (3) That's a relatively minor detail, especially with the 2020 deficits, so I made it more prominent that the debt has increased rather than the deficit. Are you persuaded by any of this? Otherwise we can restore the trimming I made except for your objections. What's important here is that as much of the trimming as possible is left trimmed out. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It would be helpful to make these edits piecemeal. SPECIFICO talk 01:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. And "not discussed" is not a valid reason for reversion, per #Current consensus #43. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, but Soibangla's reason for reversion was the sweeping deletions of significant content that are better done incrementally. "or discussed" reads like an afterthought to me. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the request to make these edits spread across multiple instances ignores that it takes a long time for the article to save edits. "Sweeping deletions of significant content" doesn't mean anything, and even if they are done better incrementally, that is not a reason to revert them either. I'm very eager to see what editors have to say about this, which will certainly inform how I go about this, if only to have my trimming not reverted going forward. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• The edit summary "trimming" without an explanation why specific content is being trimmed is insufficient, often leaving other editors no choice except reverting, especially in cases such as this (9 or 10 deletions squeezed into one edit). With 1RR other editors would end up with a long to-undo list of unexplained deletions. "Trimming" should only be used for the obvious, i.e, The most commonly consumed type of citrus juice is orange juice, which as the name implies, is extracted from oranges. #49? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Would it be sufficient to say "too much detail"? My trimming has been of the same variety as other editors, with the only significant difference being that it is contained within fewer edits. Many size reduction edits have no edit summaries at all. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Depends (and if I come across a size reduction edit without summary that I disagree with and if my hands are not tied by 1 RR I'll revert every one of them). I'd consider it sufficient for trimming this sentence: At the 2019 G7 summit, Trump skipped the sessions on climate change but said afterward during a press conference that he is an environmentalist., but not for deleting this sentence (see Starship.paint's comment): Trump's energy policies aimed to boost the production and exports of coal, oil, and natural gas.. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The coal, oil, and natural gas boosting is crucial to understand his administration's policies. It should be kept. As is "let Obamacare fail". starship.paint (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the Media career section

I've been looking at this odd looking section. Odd because we have these tiny, single paragraph subsections (to be compared with other huge subsections in the article; e.g., Pandemic). I thought of combining them into a single subsection like "Radio, television, and film". But I worry that the TV show "The Apprentice" was such a huge, important event for launching Trump's political career, as was the book "Art of the Deal". So I worry about reducing "The Apprentice" too much, and I am wondering if this section shouldn't be developed a bit more with the theme that "The Art" and "Apprentice" were significant factors in Trump's subsequent political career - both were vacuous self-promotion events, apparently, but both raised Trump's profile at the national level. Not knowing quite what to do, I make this posting. Bdushaw (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I think this section has been cut to the bone. "The Apprentice" and "The Art of the Deal" were enjoyed by people around the world. He became famous internationally. Just because he became president doesn't mean his previous career is irrelevant. And, yes, his political ascendancy built on his pre-existing fame. It's not easy to accommodate this as the article is already large and continues to grow.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

"until 1987"

None of the sources in the political career section or article state that Trump had been a Democrat from birth to 1987, just that he officially registered as a Republican in 1987. The politifact source doesn't list any political affiliation before 1987. --Steverci (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Steverci. I've removed it, couldn't find a single source that mentioned any party affiliation before 1987. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Consensus 48 question

Regarding current consensus item 48, there was an RFC that confirmed something should be added to the lead and later a discussion regarding the wording which Rosguill recently closed. After which Sdkb updated the wording here to say a specific wording had consensus. The question is does that wording have consensus and thus require a new consensus to change or can it be changed via normal editing? My read of the later closed discussion based on the first sentence of the close, While no single option drew a clear consensus here, is it can be changed through normal editing and does not require a new consensus. This is related to Mandruss's revert of Wikieditor19920 here citing consensus for a specific wording. Thoughts? PackMecEng (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. @Mandruss: reverts my common-sense change noting that the subject was criticized for something and converts those criticisms into statements of fact, while the historical record here has not settled. This is not compliant with POV and precisely the type of wording that should be avoided. I would question if Mandruss was referring to those discussions linked above as consensus, which they are clearly not, or something else entirely. If so, providing that "consensus" would be helpful. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• I think that in this situation, it's fair game to change through normal editing, but in the event of a dispute, the wording that I closed in favor of should be treated as the status quo ante. So, reverting here should count against Mandruss's daily revert quota, but in the event of a protracted dispute the version they are reverting in favor of should be left up while the dispute is being resolved. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the one thing that we can say is that there was no consensus on wording. That said, we should stick with the less problematic version, not base our decisions on who hit the flagpole first. Clearly there is a consensus among contemporary sources that has been critical of the article subject on COVID-19, but I think it's odd to restate those criticisms as fact while the matter is still ongoing. Frankly, the status quo would probably be leave it out of the lead until we've actually settled on wording. The next RfC should've been to propose specific wording once consensus was established to cover it in the lead, to avoid exactly these kinds of situations, where disagreements are playing themselves out over edits to the article. That can still be an option here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

My close was made taking into account that a parallel discussion found a consensus to include relevant content, which I mentioned and linked in the closing statement. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• I was careful when I added the current consensus item not to explicitly state that a specific wording gained consensus, since that was not in the closes that Rosguill and Awilley made. However, I do read in their closes (and the underlying discussions) consensus on the general gist of the mention. Because of that, I included It should not be significantly altered without prior consensus. when I originally added the consensus item (it was removed by Mandruss as redundant, not out of disagreement). The operative word here is significantly: I would consider it okay to attempt small tweaks without prior discussion, but not more fundamental alterations. Wikieditor19920's modification is in the significant category, in my view, since it switches from stating in Wikipedia's voice that the response was slow to an attributed statement that the response was criticized by others for being slow. Also, I do think that the extraordinary length of the discussions that led to the status quo wording needs to be considered, since per WP:CONLEVEL, widespread discussion about an issue should not be usurped by a much smaller one (a bold edit being a discussion of one). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I would disagree that my changes are "significant." It conveys the same exact sentiment and information, and merely attributes it to a consensus of reliable sources. Attribution does not change the meaning of a sentence. If changes that do not significantly alter the meaning or information conveyed are deemed "significant' and therefore unacceptable in your view, then what's really being said is "there is no consensus for this sentence, but no one's allowed to change it other than moving a comma or period." I don't see how that is consistent with typical views of consensus, but obviously there's more for us to discuss here re: content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Your change removes the endlessly discussed fact,, supported by article text, that he was "slow". Yes it was a significant change. Mandruss has witnessed all the work on this, and did not revert without good reason. SPECIFICO talk 18:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920's change was a significant change to wording that was obtained after a 5-month discussion and a formal RfC; the argument for the change was an unconvincing "Shorten this". The changed phrasing removed a significant element concerning Trump's contradicting health authorities and introduced "weasel words". Each element of the existing statement is supported by reliable sources and the content of the article. There is consensus in the RfC, the Discussion of this phrasing and elsewhere on this Talk page to avoid "weasel words". The argument is that the matter is not settled and ongoing, but that argument is inconsistent with the text body, which is well-supported by reliable sources. Bdushaw (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Looking further at the WP:Consensus policy, a relevant passage is this one: Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing. That said, in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion. We could try to parse whether or not the closes represent enough of a resolution to count, but I think the more WP:NOTBURO/WP:COMMONSENSE way to go about it is to just acknowledge that, for a sentence that has been this contested/discussed, the best way to propose significant changes is through discussion first. Anyone is welcome to start that discussion in a new thread below (and doing so might help keep this meta-discussion more on topic). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: You are suggesting that the matter was closed. It wasn't. And I have presented my justifications for the change here.

I also did not remove "slow." I changed "slow" to "did not respond quickly enough." Those are synonymous with each other. SPECIFICO, I saw good reason to change it to make the text clearer, and add attribution. Please frame your critiques so as not to frame anything you disagree with as totally meritless.

"Weasel words" are those where no source is provided anywhere in the article. "It has been criticized" or "critics have said" is perfectly appropriate in the lead where attribution is provided in the article body. See MOS:LEAD.

How about we move on from these procedural arguments, because 1) there was clearly no settled consensus on wording, and 2) "status quo" is not policy, WP:ONUS is policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: I agree that we ought to try to move beyond procedural arguments. The path is basically the same regardless: the change was reverted (or will be by someone else if Mandruss's revert is judged invalid), so it will need discussion. The topic for this thread is the procedural question, so if you want to continue pursuing the change, you can do that by opening a new thread in which you lay out your case. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The procedural argument is this: 1) there is no consensus on wording, 2) "status quo" or "my preferred version" is not policy or consensus, and 3) editors are allowed to make changes to the article so long as they continue to discuss them on the talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• So my takeaway from this is the RFC had consensus to include something but specifically declined to state what. Then the second discussion essentially closed no consensus so the status quo was left. Given that the current wording is not considered "clearly established" for the purposes of a 1RR exception per the DS for this page, since the provision consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion is not met. I think the wording in the current consensus section should be updated to reflect that. Also since the wording change was challenged a discussion should be opened to see a path forward on it. PackMecEng (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Emoluments Clause

Multiple pending lawsuits allege that Trump is violating the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which forbids presidents from taking money from foreign governments. These lawsuits commenced in 2017. I don't know if they should still be called "pending". There is a whole paragraph on this under "Conflicts of Interest". I would think, given the ballooning size of the article and the fact that this clause has never been tested in court before, we should wait until there is an actual decision. Let's remember there's a Legal affairs of Donald Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Jack Upland, Some of them may still be pending.. I'm going to look into it. I know some were thrown out, others are still on appeal. (Which is not the same as pending.) May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 13:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The Emoluments Clause cases (at least 2 of them) are still pending: Trump v. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and Trump v. State of Maryland and the District of Columbia. I would oppose deletion of the Emoluments Clause/conflicts of interest material since it is quite historically significant (the level of conflicts of interests are unprecedented in U.S. history (cite, cite) and presidential emoluments issues had never been litigated before Trump (cite). Neutrality^talk 22:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, for the purpose of current article text, the long and wide discussion of apparent self-enrichment -- or conflicts that could give that appearance -- is DUE and currently more significant than the pending litigation. SPECIFICO talk 22:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

None of you have given a reason for the inclusion of this paragraph in this bloated article. Launching a lawsuit is relatively easy, and I don't think lawsuits themselves are significant if they don't make any headway. Simply because no one's done this before isn't significant unless the lawsuit is successful.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I've addressed this immediately above, Jack. SPECIFICO talk 00:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Not in any coherent way. Do you think the pending litigation should be removed?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Jack: (1) Two federal appeals courts allowing the cases to proceed, as they have done (cite, cite), is the definition of "significant headway." It's basically the paragon example of a noteworthy pending suit: precedent-setting, significant implications, high-profile and a subject of academic and journalistic interest. (2) If you're still uncertain about the "reason for the inclusion of this paragraph," I'll make it clear: (1) This is biographically and historically significant and (2) has achieved sustained, in-depth multi-layered coverage throughout Trump's presidency (both in the mainstream press and in academia; a search of Google Scholar for articles since 2015 that mention "emoluments clause" /20 "trump" yields 370+ results). In light of (1) and (2), the modest space allocated to the content in the article (a few sentences) is due weight, and necessary for a complete treatment of the subject. Neutrality^talk 03:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that is at all convincing. No suit is "precedent-setting" until a decision is made. This is crystal ball gazing. Sure, there's plenty of speculation on this issue, but until there's a decision, this is fluff. In fact, it is just another case of information that is in the article because it is adverse to Trump, rather than being important in a neutral sense. At the very least it should be updated.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

There have already been multiple published, precedent-setting decisions in multiple appeals courts in the cases, and as the litigation continues there will be more. If your argument is that we should not even mention the case until there is a final judgment and every appeal has been exhausted, I don't believe that's supported by any policy. We're governed by the scope of coverage in RS, not the stage of a lawsuit. In any case, these cases seem legally and historically significant whether Trump wins, loses, or partially wins/partially loses. Neutrality^talk 13:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

This was an issue that was talked about in the media four years ago. I think that the current weight is close to nil. If it is mentioned, it should be included to elaborate on accusations of foreign influence. Although suits have been filed, that does not show that there is an credibility to them. The plaintiffs have not proved for example that Trump received any emoluments within the meaning of the U.S. constitution. TFD (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Need to change the Russia/Ukraine stuff as conspiracy theories from the left.

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

---

Trump has been subject to numerous conspiracy theories about possible connections to Russia which after a lengthy investigation found no evidence and the Ukraine stuff was because he was concerned about illegal racketeering. Guitarguy2323 (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

{{citation needed}} Praxidicae (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

How about the fact that Robert Muller said he found nothing?Guitarguy2323 (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

He did not. Please cite RS for any further concerns along these lines. SPECIFICO talk 00:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify: Mueller actually said he found numerous connections between Russia and the Trump campaign, just not anything he thought amounted to an indictable crime. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Trump was never personally under investigation until he fired Comey in May 2017, which raised obstruction concerns. The FBI investigated possible efforts by Russia to infiltrate the Trump campaign via people he had hired. I'd like to think good patriots would want the FBI to keep a foreign adversary from penetrating the inner circle of a man who might become president. soibangla (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Followup: Lafayette Square protester removal

We currently have a whole subsection in the Domestic policy section called "Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op." It includes two paragraphs and three external videos. It’s a level 4 heading which puts it in the same class as large issues like "Economy and trade", "Energy and climate", and "Health care". Per the discussion above all this seems like massive overkill. At the same time, we don’t have anything at all about the racial justice protests that have been such a huge thing this year. Maybe we should create a subsection about the Black Lives Matter protests, and make this Lafayette Square thing into a paragraph in that subsection. We could call the subsection "Social justice protests". Or maybe there is some better place for it. But I do think we should reduce our coverage about this incident and subsume it into a larger topic. Thoughts? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I've now trimmed and merged the subsection per that discussion. Protests regarding specifically racial justice probably only warrant a couple of lines in this article but are very adequately described in much detail in other articles. As it relates to Donald Trump, this is another issue that has risen and promptly disappeared from significant public interest. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

As discussed before, that merge places the subsection under "Protests", which deals with protests at the time of the election, and outside of the "Presidency" section, which is clearly wrong. It refers to actions he took as President. And that solution has already been rejected in the discussion above. (And why a new discussion?) The Black Lives Matter protests were triggered by the killing of George Floyd by the Minneapolis police — not essentially a federal issue. I think the problem with the Lafayette Square incident is that it can't be summed up simply, without including context and reactions. I think we should drop it entirely as it had no major consequences--Jack Upland (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

not essentially a federal issue - as if being a federal issue would automatically qualify something for this Trump biography. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

No one said it did. It's just the protests weren't generally against the Trump administration. This is no an article about everything that has happened during the Trump presidency.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I forgot which side of that debate you're on. Retracted. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The subsection included protests that happened during Trump's presidency as well as protests before. This issue might warrant moving the Protests subsection, and I was surprised to see that the section was not in "Public profile". Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I tend to think, as MelanieN suggested, that protests should be dealt with in context. I think a section about "Protests" that included any protest against Donald Trump for any reason at any time would be confusing and not very meaningful. The current section could confuse a reader into thinking the Lafayette Square protests were protests against the 2016 election. There is no indication in the text what the protests were about, for that matter there is no indication why Trump went to the church and held up a Bible (right way up).--Jack Upland (talk) 07:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I have updated the paragraph to clarify this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I am OK with the current version as updated by Onetwothreeip. It is in the "protests" section, which I think is appropriate, and it includes a mention of the George Floyd protests (which I agree were not primarily about Trump, although they were a major theme of the news in his final year in office, and they did provoke a lot of reaction from him along "law and order" themes). This "protests" section follows immediately AFTER the section "Election to the presidency" and includes protests that followed his election, so this is an appropriate placement IMO. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Reverted for "Too much information, and too many citations."

Changing a 2-citation to a 3-citation bundle is hardly WP:OVERCITE as many other pages (Barack Obama's and Mitt Romney's to name a few) have them. WP:OVERCITE is also an essay not a guideline, so that reason seems to be invalid. As for too much information, the article is certainly long, but adding Netanyahu to the list is hardly any difference. The Gallup poll addition is also significant; the Bush reference could be removed for length, but the poll is certainly equally if not more informative than the 2020 Pew poll. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I would be fine with replacing the poll with another poll, but we don't need to include every single other leader Trump has said he likes with its own citation. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I can replace the Pew one with the Gallup one, I guess. The sources I added indicate that Netanyahu and Trump's relationship is significantly closer than that of the other leaders mentioned. To omit him seems rather dishonest, and is only adding 2 words to the already 20,000 or so word count of the article. If he should replace someone, it should at least be with Xi Jinping, since Trump has called him enemy in 2019 (something not he or even Pompeo has called Egypt's Sisi or Turkey's Erdogan), accused Xi of a disinformation attack on the US and Europe, and is currently blaming/trying to punish Beijing for the pandemic. Multiple outlets have also suggested his "friendship" with Xi is linked to his trade deal, it's certainly not as notable as the other entries of strongmen.

I think the rewording of the January Gallup source on his career best approval rating, with the addition of the USA Today source is also significant, as it helps understand why his ratings have been so stable. It can be trimmed of course, but keeping the section as it is now with the implication that 40% of Americans are propaganda-consuming Trump cultists is not very productive, even if it's an understandable idea. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)