Talk:Donald Trump

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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)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

Rape issue and the lead

Shouldn't the fact that Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll in a civil trial be in the lead? It is a highly relevant biographical detail about someone, that he was found to have raped a woman in a judicial proceeding.

And yes: it was rape. It wasn't rape under the anachronistic definition of NY Criminal Law (because it was with his hands), and hence the finding of the court that it was "sexual abuse," not rape, for purposes of NYC law. But the jury did find that Trump had raped Carroll, since the conduct he was found to have to engaged in [forced penetration with his hands] fits within the common meaning of rape. A filing by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, rejecting Trump's motion for a second trial in the Carroll case, clarified this. See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

To quote the judge:

The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.' Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that. HistorianEzzat (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The lead says that In 2023, a civil trial jury found that Trump sexually abused E. Jean Carroll. We had discussions about sexual abuse vs. rape "within the meaning of the New York Penal Law", archived here and here, and went with what the jury's decision said. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd take issue with common meaning of rape. Digital penetration is not what I think of when I hear the word. The entry in my dictionary-of-choice says "usually sexual intercourse", so, if there's a "common meaning", it would be that. Interpretations may differ in other parts of the world, but this is an American article. "Sexual abuse" is even more vague, but we're giving Trump the benefit of the ambiguity for purposes of the lead. It's a common problem with leads: there is not enough room to be as accurate and nuanced as we'd like.

But all this is fairly irrelevant per policy. I haven't reviewed the previous discussions, but I assume they concluded that the word "rape" was not used in the preponderance of reliable sources. If you want to say "rape" without explanation (a necessity in the lead), you'll need to show otherwise. You have cited only one secondary source.

This does not necessarily preclude further elaboration in the body section, bearing in mind that it links to an article dedicated to the subject. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Your quibble about "common meaning" is with the judge, not with editors. I'm old enough to remember when "no" often literally meant "yes" (being coy and shy was mandated seductive behavior, so a soft "no" wasn't intended to be understood as a hard "no"), but now any "no" means "no", and rape includes any unwanted oral, rectal, or vaginal penetration without advance permission, and not necessarily with a penis. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

As I said: fairly irrelevant per policy. Forgive the off-topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I would say not, as it is not a settled issue. When the SC decides we can say what they say (assuming they say its a valid argument). Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, as I understand it, neither the rape of Carol, or the civil trial occurred while he was president. Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything ? Or are the editors as usual diverting the issue via Rhetoric ? If it was you...you would be in jail and yet you will defend a sexual predator which makes you an accomplice Anonymous8206 (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It does not, but there has been an edit between my post and yours that moved something I replied to. Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

More rhetoric..what does that mean in English ? Anonymous8206 (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

What it says, is that between my post and your post, the comments I was referring to had been moved, I am unsure how this is rhetoric. Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

My fault. Another editor mistakenly inserted the "The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on April 25" thread in the middle of this section. Slatersteven replied to that. I noticed the misplaced thread and moved it without moving Slatersteven's comments. Confusion ensued. Sorry for the rhetoric. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

i don't think we can use the r-word unless many reliable sources start referring to it as such, if they begin to call out the antiquated definition used by the State of New York. ValarianB (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It's all rhetoric...the editors are incapable of saying anything here in plain English just like lawyers in a courtroom..that's how a small number of people are able control the narrative..anyone who doesn`t know what a rape is has never experienced it...needs to be in the lead Anonymous8206 (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

MAybe, but we are governed by law (and policies) and policy is clear, we can't say a person committed a crime unless they have been proven guilty of having committed that crime (see wp:blp). Trump was only found guilty of sexual assault, we could say "However the judge said that he committed rape within the common use of the term" or somesuch. Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

We are governed by force Anonymous8206 (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like such a dumb, ChatGPT-generated bumper sticker, I'm not even sure how to respond. If that's all you have left to offer, then it seems like this thread is done. Zaathras (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

No we are governed by wp:policy. Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

You know as well as I do he is a sexual predator..it is relevant regardless of who gets the last word here Anonymous8206 (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

It was rape; both the judge and sources support it. I added this sentence to the lead, with "sexually abused" to avoid bikeshedding. The Trump claim that "it wasn't rape" relies on a technicality in New York law. The federal judge said it unequivocally: Mr. Trump in fact did 'rape' Ms. Carroll as that term commonly is used and understood in contexts outside of the New York Penal Law. It's been litigated, it's a settled issue; I don't understand on what basis people say otherwise. DFlhb (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Under the law, Trump is innocent of the crime of rape, and also innocent of any crime at all, because he has not (yet) been convicted of any crime in a court of law. People in civil trials are not entitled to any presumption of innocence, and they also cannot be found guilty of any crime. Whatever we write about Trump, we should be clear about this distinction, and clear that Trump is currently presumed innocent of any crime. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

In the real world..not a courtroom...if you think he is innocent you are deluded..he is a known sexual predator..I will never win this fight..I don`t intend to..you are protecting a pedophile and you know it..all for the sake of maintaining capitalism in a world full of starving children..you don`t have a conscious..but you will win this meaningless war of words..that peice of garbage belongs in prison and so do his accomplices Anonymous8206 (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Is sex trafficking bad? Is murder bad? Is rape bad, even "digital" rape?

Yes, yes, and yes.

What about fornication? What about abortion? What about pork consumption?

There is no objective good or bad. As such, it's not about what we think at all: it's about what RSs think. We base our characterizations on reliable sources, not our own opinions. And, if you think the people on this page are trying to "protect" Trump, you haven't been paying attention to many of the recent discussions.

It's fine to have opinions, but save them for... I don't know, Reddit, or Twitter. Comments like this don't help to improve the encyclopedia. Cessaune [talk] 18:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem here is the apparently unshakable view that Wikipedia policy is an impediment to Truth (or a failure to comprehend the policy). Applicable shortcuts are WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE, and would include WP:DE if the comments were more frequent. For now, it's a mere annoyance easily enough ignored, which I try to do whenever possible. No competent editor is including the comments in consensus assessments. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Read wp:npa and wp:agf we are governed by policies such as wp:blp which means we cannot say someone committed a crime they have not been prosecuted for, even if we think they are guilty. We are not here to right great wrongs, we are here to present what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Off topic. Approaching chronic disruption worthy of WP:AE complaint. Please do not respond to this editor user per DFTT. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The issue is Wikipedia is edited by a select few..meaningless articles regarding say celebrities or sports are generally ignored by most people..an article like this will be viewed by millions..everyone that edits these articles has an agenda of some kind which is why I refuse to edit articles..I am honest..in the end whoever is the slickest rhetorical bullshit artist will get their way here it has nothing to do with the truth..I will not..I am not a lawyer or a wannabe lawyer ie politician...Donald Trump is a known sexual predator who has preyed on underage girls..it is common knowledge Anonymous8206 (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC) As a final statement, if Wikipedia is edited by a "select few", yet you "refuse to edit articles", how are you helping to combat this "agenda" you speak of? Cessaune [talk] 14:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Lowered bond amount

Greetings, all. Re: New York State's civil fraud case

As the news came that the New York Appellate Court, First Division, lowered the bond amount Trump had to post and granted an extension of payment, I added to that section the following: "On March 25, New York's Appellate Division ruled that Trump can post a lower bond, "in the amount of $175 million," and granted a delay of payment by 10 days," followed by a source to that effect.

User:Space4Time3Continuum2x reverted my edit giving the following reason: "The lower bond doesn't affect the trial court's decision which stands unless overruled on appeal." I found the reason frankly absurd since the information about a lower bond quite evidently did not affect the ruling for the payment itself and reverted the edit. After being reminded of the WP:CTOP procedure, I deleted my edit and I'm now bringing this here for discussion. I still cannot fathom why anyone would delete the information about the lower-amount decision and leave the article without any mention of it just because the information was not, per their opinion, complete. Even if they were correct in this, the obviously proper move forward would be to add the ostensibly missing information rather the delete the entire text. So, I'd appreciate some light in this Alice tunnel, please. -The Gnome (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• We are not a newspaper, so in truth, none of this should be in the article until the trials are over. But what does this tell us about the trial? Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You must have failed to notice that the Donald Trump article is one of the biggest in the Wikipedia. (And rightly so since the world's media, and most prominently U.S. media, or, in other words, a plethora of sources, are full of Trump-related news every day without fail.) Wikipedia "not being a newspaper" means mainly that Wikipedia does not report on everything going on in the world today, does not disseminate the opinion of those who write it, and does not "expose the truth" through some editor's investigative work. It's a good essay but, obviously, there are news, even breaking news, that are posted up in Wikipedia and must be posted up. Case in point, this development. If the amount had not been lowered, Trump faced a seizing of assets. I assume if that were to happen, it would be accepted as notable and important to include here. But we do not want to have the information about the threat that was hanging (still is, actually) over Trump's finances -- because it looks like ...newspaper work. Right. -The Gnome (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Glad to hear that the Lord granted your wish. just because the information was not, per their opinion, complete — huh? My edit summary may have been a tad obtuse, definition 2b, but that's your opinion, not mine. Unless Trump files an appeal, the trial is over, and the decision stands. The appeals court's Lex Trump makes it likelier that Trump will be able to post bond and file an appeal but, until he does, WP:NOTNEWS applies. If he does appeal, our second sentence should simply replace "said he would appeal" with "appealed". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Moving in mysterious ways is indeed an attribute of deity; poor insolent me had you down as merely a human editor. You write, "Unless Trump files an appeal, the trial is over, and the decision stands." And where, pray, was any mention or even an insinuation that this is not a simple, solid fact? Nowhere, and certainly not in any source - not even in the most fanatically pro-Trump sources. So, if you want to replace replace "said he would appeal" with "appealed" if and when he files it, fine, but that was not ever a problem involving my edit. To return to the issue that was inexplicably (see above) raised, the matter of the size of the bond was and still is very much "news of the day" for many a day, as can be trivially shown. Which is why your revert is inexcusable: It leaves out of the article a very important aspect of the legal process. I truly cannot understand such a reasoning. Perhaps the subject itself of the biography distorts our approach, like a black hole. -The Gnome (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

You said it yourself, it's very much "news of the day", and WP is not a newspaper. This article isn't about the legal process; those details belong in New York civil investigation of The Trump Organization. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The expression "news of the day" that I used, coupled with "for many a day," which you conveniently omit, denotes an important event that made "front page" in the United States, and in not a small number of countries around the world. This is not some one-off pyrotechnic but a game changer for Trump's finances. In the context of Tramp's legal travails, it was an important development, since without the significant decrease in the bond amount, Trump, as widely reported, faced a potential seizing of assets (check your sources) or bankruptcy (ditto). This is clearly not Wikipedia-as-newspaper but reporting a significant event. Omitting it, especially in this article, about the specific legal case, is a serious encyclopaedic misstep. -The Gnome (talk) 08:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

P.S. You write, " This article isn't about the legal process." The article is the biography of Trump. It's a very thorough, extended biography. It includes practically all his legal entanglements. This is about the N.York state civil case. We're dealing here with that section in the article! So, it is precisely "here," i.e. in the section about the case, that the information about lowering the bond amount belongs, no matter how we choose to dance around this. -The Gnome (talk) 08:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Potentia of Invalid Edit Revert on Truth Social Floatation

@Mandruss I urge you to revert your edit Thanks Jaymailsays (talk) 03:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

That's an argument? Declined, for the reasons given in my edit summary. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

You offered an invalid opinion, not a reason? It verges on vandalism. Jaymailsays (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh my. Wait for others. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I see nothing invalid about the revert. And be careful with the word "vandalism". It verges on WP:CASTING ASPERSIONS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

It's excessive detail in his personal bio and belongs in the related article. Also, WP:NOTNEWS. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Excessive?

His wealth increased considerably overnight, at a time when by his own submissions he was unable to raise the original court bond amount and needed a further ten days to provide a much lesser amount. The bullying tactics are surprising, given the importance of Truth Social as an asset, albeit a paper one. Jaymailsays (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Wait a minute. He posted multiple times that he had $500 million in cash at the same time his lawyers said he couldn't afford to pay less than that. And I have no idea who you are claiming is "bullying". As far as this stock, experts say it is not worth anything close to its price, insiders sold shares before it opened, the concept that we would add this to his net worth one day after an IPO makes no sense for an encyclopedia, the variance will be enormous meaning we will be wrong if we don't change it every ten minutes. Just today, it went up 24% and then dropped 9%, and it's still morning. There is no way this number belongs in an encyclopedia at this time. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Donald_Trump#Current_consensus #5. We use Trump's net worth evaluation and matching rankings from the Forbes annual list of billionaires. Axios writes that Truth Social "is trading like a meme stock, meaning its market value is completely divorced from its financial reality". It has "far fewer users and less income than any social network that has gone public before. ... Meme stocks like GameStop and AMC that soared during the pandemic-era retail investor bump have since crashed". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Love the way as an amateur you try to explain stock trading. Keep digging, it is very entertaining.

All wealth fluctuates. A fact of life and death. Jaymailsays (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

how bout you try restating your opinion without the pretty blatant personal attack, before it becomes actionable. the strikethrough format would a fitting format to utilize. ValarianB (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Net worth update

Resolved

 – ―Mandruss ☎ 23:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Spinoff from the above edit request.

• Consensus #5 says: "...from the Forbes annual list of billionaires (currently the 2020 edition, $2.1B/1001st/275th)...". Apparently, and my limited memory concurs, the "275th" came from the Forbes 400 Richest People in America. So that must have been in the article in 2020, but has since been removed (as unimportant?) without regard for #5. Now we mention only the global ranking. Should the discrepancy be resolved by adding the U.S. ranking back into the article, or by removing it from #5?
• At the top of Forbes's global ranking, it says #1217; I'm guessing that's the annual ranking. Scrolling down, it says "$2.6B", "as of 3/27/24", and "#1285 in the world today". I don't see how we can get a matching annual net worth and ranking from that. I vaguely recall that it was similarly confusing in 2020, I don't know how this was resolved then, and I'm too lazy to read the discussions to try to find out. Forbes's 2020 page is no longer available to provide a clue. Did we take the annual ranking and the real-time net worth and call it a day? If we did, we lost verifiability for the net worth very quickly. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

But wait, it gets worse. The article currently says: "In their 2021 billionaires ranking, Trump's net worth was estimated to be $2.4 billion (1,299th in the world)." It follows with a citation with the title, "#1001 Donald Trump", accessed April 2020. And following the link takes you to the page I linked above, which verifies neither the $2.4B nor the 1,299th. What's the point of a citation that doesn't (and can't) provide verifiability? Just to give the appearance that we're complying with policy, with the hope nobody will notice that we're doing anything but? What a hot mess. If we can't do better than this in the long term, we should revisit #5 and find a better methodology. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I just updated consensus #5 and the "Wealth" section with the 2023 annual ranking on the Forbes billionaires list. I removed the Forbes 400 listing (nth in the U.S.). It isn't mentioned in #5, and he's not on the 2023 list, even though a search for his name says he's #343. This is your edit on April 13, 2020; someone updated to the 2021 numbers without updating the access date. The numbers appear to be correct, according to the 2021 list on the Wayback Machine. If the billionaires' assets aren't publicly traded, it's mostly guesstimates, AFAIK, and, as Trump told some court or other, his wealth fluctuates based on how rich he happens to feel on any given day. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a pill to help me stomach the deviation from established process. We haven't often modified a consensus item (removal of U.S. ranking) because it was ignored, without revisiting it and reaching a consensus to amend it. Otherwise, that looks like an improvement, at least. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

If including the U.S. ranking wasn't part of the consensus in the supporting discussions, disregard the above. Still lazy, maybe permanently. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Pavlovian conditioning? I saw "currently" and went into update mode. I self-reverted. I suggest removing the parenthesis with the 2020 numbers, "Forbes annual list of billionaires" is self-explanatory. As for the url we use in the article, the archived discussion doesn’t mention the Forbes 400 list at all (and Trump didn’t make it in 2023). The "static list" AlexEng mentioned in the discussion is this one, which isn't static at all. It’s updated daily, and when you scroll down, you get to Trump's stats for the previous year, including the Forbes billionaires list, or the last year Trump made the list, i.e., currently the 2022 Forbes 400 list. The other option, which I used in the article, is the World’s Billionaires List where you can enter Trump’s name in the "search" text field to show Trump's ranking for the previous year. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

the archived discussion doesn’t mention the Forbes 400 list at all -- As I tried to indicate, if the consensus didn't include inclusion of the U.S. ranking, removal of that from #5 was the correct action. Consensus items should always be made to accurately reflect the underlying discussions, even when discrepancies are discovered years later.

I could live with removing the parenthesis from #5, which moots the preceding.

My only gripe with your article edit is that its citation links to the home page of the Forbes billionaires list, instead of its page for Trump. If that's necessary for verifiability, I'm missing it. I generally dislike citations that make readers search for something, when that can be avoided. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem with Trump's page is that it only lists the current ranking (today it's #413) and "worth" (down $335 million from yesterday's). It mentions the previous annual net worth but not the ranking. To see that you also need to do something, i.e., scroll down to the "Forbes lists" section. We'll probably wind up with daily "corrections" of worth and ranking in the article. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I thought the #1217 at the top is the previous annual ranking, matching the $2.5B. No? Then what is it? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

- in my defense, it's dwarfed by "Donald Trump" further down. I changed the url and the title. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 22:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

No defense necessary, only capitulation. ;) I'll "remove the parenthesis" and we can put this to bed, again. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

By what right, Space4Time3Continuum2x, did you "update," i.e. changed, a consensus in Wikipedia without first engaging in a wide, talk-page consultation first? As I recall, that policy is quite clear about changing consensus and I do not recall anything about "updating." Moreover, a helpful fellow editor recently reminded me of the need, in specific circumstances, to engage in dialogue before edits. And, by the way, to prevent chaff, WP:BOLD cannot be invoked. -The Gnome (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

If it changes it needs updating, we are an encyclopedia. Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

See my response to Mandruss. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Trump gets news now for recent wealthy gain

@Mandruss: You reverted me here: [1]. I did not mention the Forbes list, but instead Forbes news source. There are other reliable sources saying the same information about his sudden wealth gain from putting the company that does Truth Social on the stock market.

On March 26th, 2024, Forbes reported that Trumps wealth rose from $2.3 billion to $6.4 billion after Trump Media & Technology Group was put on the stock exchange. Dream Focus 01:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

We need to take a longer view look at the stock than just IPO day. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe the whole point of consensus #5 is to avoid having to track net worth at more than annual frequency. Also WP:NOTNEWS. See similar discussions on this page, here and here. If Forbes reports ~$6B in this year's annual evaluation, we'll certainly update the article to reflect that. Likewise, if it subsequently falls by billions before their 2025 evaluation, we'll certainly over-report it until then. So this methodology can work in Trump's favor or not, depending on which direction the wind blows between annual evaluations, but always in Wikipedia's favor. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

It still a well covered news event, so it doesn't matter if its included in any ranking or whatnot, this notable event should be included. Dream Focus 02:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS: "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style." WP:ONUS: "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included." We have ignored other "well covered" interim net worth changes, and it matters not that this is a big one. Being well-covered doesn't require inclusion, far from it (common misconception that needs to be stamped out). We have a perfectly legitimate local consensus against your rationale on this issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

If the 2023 annual list is any indication, Forbes will be publishing their 2024 annual list in April. I have no idea whether they'll use the guesstimates of the day or some sort of average. Whatever it is, we'll update our article accordingly and live with that until Forbes publishes the 2025 annual list (or until a new consensus forms), even if and when the Trump Media stock crashes and burns in the fall. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

And this, people, is why we wait. Trump’s Net Worth Falls by $1 Billion as His Media Company’s Stock Plunges Zaathras (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense. Its still an import news item that should be included, then updated as necessary. We don't update wealth constantly that keeps fluctuating, but we aren't just mentioning a number, but listing details about a notable event in the person's life. Dream Focus 01:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

(Hint: The word "nonsense" doesn't strengthen an argument.) ―Mandruss ☎ 05:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Which has not aged well, this is why wp:news exists, to stop us from having to update something every week. Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

We are not a newspaper. We are an encyclopedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I took a closer look at the source provided by you, i.e., I read the article instead of just the headline. Quote: "Trump’s net worth dropped from $2.5 billion on the 2023 Forbes billionaires list to $2.3 billion on this year’s soon-to-be-released edition, knocking him down more than 200 spots, to No. 1,438." Forbes published the 2024 rankings today and, sure enough, there's Trump at #1,438. I updated the "Wealth" section to reflect that ranking. Kind of an unexpected development but it looks as though Trump will have to suffer through the indignity of being #1,438 for a year. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea whether they'll use the guesstimates of the day or some sort of average. $2.3B "annual" at the same time as $5.9B "real-time" (both "as of 4/2/24"). I guess your question has been answered. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Post Presidency (2021-present)

• Moved from my talk page... Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 12:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Friendly reminder to read the notices and warnings above the editing window: The Contentious_topics procedure applies to Donald Trump. "You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message." You failed to adhere to the procedure with this edit and the source you added here. Please, self-revert.Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Will do this evening. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 12:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Friendly Reply. All I did was add a comment clarifying what I felt was incorrect evaluation of Trump's seeming number of successful endorsements. The article stated; A majority of candidates endorsed by him won in Republican primary elections. It was inaccurately presented to the reader as if it was some great and unique accomplishment. The source given, (#670), was a New York Times article and required a subscription to be viewed so it could not be easily verified by the reader. In order to provide a more balanced view, I rightfully added: Many of these candidates were either unopposed or incumbents who already held their seats using [2] as a valid reference. You reverted with the summary...Misunderstanding? The content is about the Republican primaries, not the general election. So...the kerfuffle was your misunderstanding. Not mine. The BBC article was about the Republican primaries not the general election. Therefore, I do not find it necessary to self revert. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 05:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC).

I will revert if other editors agree w/ Space. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 12:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I see here, [3], that my effort to bring clarity has been reverted. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 13:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

As to content, I don't care. As to process, I'm inclined to take Space4T's word for it unless you can show the error of his thinking. Process at this article is pretty much inviolable, having been established by higher powers than us, and nobody understands it better, or is more committed to it, than Space4T. In my experience, Space4T does not selectively apply process rules when they serve his purpose. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we should delete the sentence A majority of candidates endorsed by him won in Republican primary elections instead of adding more material about the performance of Republican candidates in the 2022 United States elections. Your proposed and the BBC source may be better placed at 2022_United_States_elections#Democracy. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 22:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Deletion would be satisfactory. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 04:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

In the future I will think carefully before contributing anything to improve this article. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 04:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I recommend that for any article. Good to see you again, by the way; it's been years. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes! Likewise. Glad to see you are still doing important work. I was passing by and noticed Citizen Trump getting false credit. I should have known it was a trap! Big mistake! But good to see you. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 05:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Buster7: Trap? Nah, we don't do traps, just the occasional not-thinking-it-all-the-way-through. Thanks for pointing out the credit where credit wasn't due. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Outbreak

Regarding this edit: this isn't an article about the outbreak, it's an article about Trump, so what happened to Trump is what is essential to be included in this article. Additionally "struggling with the disease" is unclear phrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

An outbreak is more than person getting sick, even if that person is the president, and his WH turning into a hot spot (WaPo cite) for the virus seems fitting for the way he handled the pandemic. "Struggling with the disease" is from the caption of one of the photographs in the NY Times cite. "Unwell" seems a bit weak. On the official video of his return, he yanked off the mask and gasped for air on the balcony. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 22:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree that an outbreak is more than one person getting sick, but this article is about that one person. And we can't copy phrasing directly from a source like that. We could use "seriously unwell" if strengthening is needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I changed "still struggling with the disease" to "still infectious and unwell". Several of the cited sources cite Dr. Conley, his WH physician, "describing the president's condition as improving, though he said Trump was 'not out of the woods yet'". Conley also said that Trump could remain contagious "for several more days at least". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I rephrased the section to clarify that his case was part of an outbreak, leaving the details to the relevant article. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion pointer

This talk page is currently under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Note, this discussion is about our consensus #25 and has been open since January 23 without notifying editors of this article. Sneaky (not by Nikkimaria), but justice ultimately prevails. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mandruss I'm confused, you expect to be informed about a discussion that tangentially involved this page, but came to a consensus (the invalid #25) without notifying the editors at WT:CITE? That goes both ways, you know. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it doesn't go both ways. We don't notify a guideline talk page when we're considering a consensus that would deviate from the guideline. Unlike what you did, that is not a community norm and I've never seen anyone do it. (As I've previously said, you are free to do that if you want to bring in outside voices. But it is not a procedural "community norm".) The essential difference is that changes to an article are discussed at its talk page, not at guideline talk pages. Out of 65 current consensus items, not a one links to discussions off this page (although the linked discussions may link to discussions off this page). And #25 is hardly invalid, as I've thoroughly articulated at WT:CITE. Guidelines are only guidelines and we are allowed to deviate from them (your CONLEVEL claim is completely baseless).

You have done everything except what might change #25—start a discussion about it on this page. When do you plan to drop this stick? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Since you can't seem to let go of this CONLEVEL thing, I've now raised it at WP:VPP#CONLEVEL and guidelines. Feel free to go there and lose. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I recommend you stepping away from the page for a bit, you are getting close to crossing WP:NPA over here. Soni (talk) 05:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh my. We seem to interpret NPA differently. Where have I come close to violating it? Certainly not by referring to WP:STICK (sans the shortcut), which is fairly routine. Certainly not by calling an editor's claim "baseless", which is simply a counter-argument. If you want to talk about battleground behavior and disruptive editing, consider unilaterally cancelling a consensus item[4] (this is NOT something subject to BOLD editing) and then edit-warring one's change.[5]

For now, I'll decline your thoughtful recommendation. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

"Feel free to go there and lose." is arguably a civility thing, depending on where in the world one lives, but not NPA vio. I'll strike that as unessential. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

NPA isn't exactly the right policy in my opinion. Maybe WP:DBI? The discussion at VPP CITE reeks of sarcasm and unnecessary snark, from both parties. And Feel free to go there and lose is a step too far. Phrases like that show pretty clearly that any potential discussion has preemptively been set up for failure. Cessaune [talk] 07:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I see zero sarcasm and unnecessary snark at VPP (yet). Perhaps you meant WT:CITE? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Thank you for the correction. Cessaune [talk] 07:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah you're right. I was thinking of WP:civility for that exact line, just mentally mixed up the page names Soni (talk) 10:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Trade war

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Please don't remove cleanup tags without addressing them; {{repetition}} is a redirect to {{copy edit}}. We've now got the same trade war discussed in multiple subsections, which is confusing for readers. Please pick one and consolidate. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I challenged your edit, and instead of taking your proposed change to the Talk page you added a tag: your edit, my revert, your tagging, my removal. (I don’t get {{repetition}} is a redirect to {{copy edit}}.)

I don't see how we can present Trade without China or China without the trade war. "Trade" focuses on U.S. trade relations, including with China, and on Trump's misunderstanding/misrepresentation, to this day, of how tariffs work:

and launched a trade war with China by sharply increasing tariffs on 818 categories (worth $50 billion) of Chinese goods imported into the U.S.[343] While Trump said that import tariffs are paid by China into the U.S. Treasury, they are paid by American companies that import goods from China.[344]

"China" mentions the trade war among a number of other things:

As president, Trump launched a trade war against China that was widely characterized as a failure

Both have inline links to China–United States trade war — different emphasis, and we don't know that readers will read both subsections. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I probably don't have the whole story here. But, please do not unilaterally place maintenance tags on this article. Please discuss here on the talk page first. And personally, I want to add, please also obtain consensus for placing a maintenance tag on this article. Also, my personal opinion is - since there are many editors involved on this page, a maintenance tag will never (ever) be needed. And adding a tag to this page might be construed as disruptive. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

That's not how maintenance tags work. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

We don't write subsections to stand alone. I've taken a stab at reorganizing the section in a different way to avoid the repetition. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

(Redacted)---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Taken a stab? While there's a discussion on the Talk page? Kindly self-revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

All right, I've done that for the moment. Now do you have a substantive response to that revision? It retains the misunderstanding/misrepresentation component that you felt was important to include, while also addressing some of the oversectioning of the page. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Nikkimaria. I looked at your proposed version of the Foreign policy section. I liked the way you had the more general aspects in the lead paragraphs and had the country specific aspects in each country's subsection. Before the change, the subsection Trade did not seem to fit the subsection organization. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Starship paint already told you the purpose of the current structure of the article - what you see as "repetitive." So, now we are the discussion phase and I recommend discussing before editing again. Also, you are on a contentious topic page. That means editing here requires extra care. Please see the WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES template at the top of this page. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, they are both good. What are we looking for here? Reintegrate the section on "Trade" into the other two sections? What seems to work best? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The current text starts with a section on Trump’s general foreign policy/opinions on relations with other countries: America first, admiration for authoritarian regimes, antagonism towards allies and NATO, lack of consistency and reliability. That’s followed by a subsection devoted to trade, including his incomprehension of how tariffs work, as exemplified by his remarks on the tariffs he imposed on China. The China subsection also has one short clause on the trade war which was the stated cause for the proposed reorganization, ie., to avoid the repetition. IMO, it’s a necessary repetition because China is the U.S.’s largest supplier of goods and its third largest customer.

The proposed text hides Trump’s lack of understanding of tariffs in the subsection on China. It moves the remaining content of the "Trade" subsection in between Trump’s self-description as nationalist and having an America First foreign policy and his actual foreign policy. For some reason that I haven’t figured out yet, it’s also slightly longer than the current text, so streamlining is apparently not an issue. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Space Time, thanks very much for the explanation and the work you put into this. I don't think a change is necessary. I think the "repetition" issue is a non-issue. The original version, as it stands, is the most accurate, even if only by a few sentences. However, if consensus chooses the changed version that you propose, then so be it. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not the editor proposing reorganization, I, too, want to keep the current version. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The remarks on tariffs could be generalized and moved up. However, the rest of your comment is confusing: if trade is not part of his "actual foreign policy", why is it in the Foreign Policy section at all? It's certainly inextricably tied to the America First piece. As Bob notes, the current organization, in addition to being oversectioning, doesn't fit well. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Space Time never wrote that Trade is not part of Trump's foreign policy, actual or otherwise. The reason for the subsection on Trade is because Trump's view on trade and implementation of that view was very important. In other words, it certainly is part of his foreign policy legacy. Trade is one of the issues that stand out during his presidency.

Especially, I think because of Trump's pugilistic attitude toward China regarding trade, which had a memorable economic impact. I think it is important to emphasize tariffs in a Trade subsection. It fits perfectly well, but more than that - it serves a purpose. I think Nikkimaria's argument is more about ornamentation than function or serving a purpose. Hence repeating a clause is a non-issue. Lastly, Space Time pointed out we don't know which section people will read, so this very miniscule repetition again serves a purpose. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

You are presenting an excellent rationale for promoting the trade content into the general foreign policy area, given its central importance. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Current text and proposed reorganization

Current text

Foreign policy Main article: Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration See also: List of international presidential trips made by Donald Trump Trump with the other G7 leaders at the 45th summit in France, 2019 Trump described himself as a "nationalist" and his foreign policy as "America First". His foreign policy was marked by praise and support of populist, neo-nationalist, and authoritarian governments. Hallmarks of foreign relations during Trump's tenure included unpredictability and uncertainty, a lack of consistent policy, and strained and sometimes antagonistic relationships with European allies. He criticized NATO allies and privately suggested on multiple occasions that the U.S. should withdraw from NATO. Trade See also: Trump tariffs Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, and launched a trade war with China by sharply increasing tariffs on 818 categories (worth $50 billion) of Chinese goods imported into the U.S. While Trump said that import tariffs are paid by China into the U.S. Treasury, they are paid by American companies that import goods from China. Although he pledged during the campaign to significantly reduce the U.S.'s large trade deficits, the trade deficit in July 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, "was the largest monthly deficit since July 2008". Following a 2017–2018 renegotiation, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) became effective in July 2020 as the successor to NAFTA. Russia ... China Before and during his presidency, Trump repeatedly accused China of taking unfair advantage of the U.S. As president, Trump launched a trade war against China that was widely characterized as a failure, sanctioned Huawei for alleged ties to Iran, significantly increased visa restrictions on Chinese students and scholars, and classified China as a currency manipulator. Trump also juxtaposed verbal attacks on China with praise of Chinese Communist Party leader Xi Jinping, which was attributed to trade war negotiations. After initially praising China for its handling of COVID-19, he began a campaign of criticism starting in March 2020. Trump said he resisted punishing China for its human rights abuses against ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang region for fear of jeopardizing trade negotiations. In July 2020, the Trump administration imposed sanctions and visa restrictions against senior Chinese officials, in response to expanded mass detention camps holding more than a million of the country's Uyghur minority.</nowiki>

Proposed text

Foreign policy Main article: Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration See also: List of international presidential trips made by Donald Trump and Trump tariffs Trump with the other G7 leaders at the 45th summit in France, 2019 Trump described himself as a "nationalist" and his foreign policy as "America First". He imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum, among other imports; however, the trade deficit in July 2020 "was the largest monthly deficit since July 2008". He also withdrew the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, and renegotiated the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA, effective July 2020) as the successor to NAFTA. Hallmarks of foreign relations during Trump's tenure included unpredictability and uncertainty, a lack of consistent policy, and strained and sometimes antagonistic relationships with European allies. His foreign policy was marked by praise and support of populist, neo-nationalist, and authoritarian governments. He criticized NATO allies and privately suggested on multiple occasions that the U.S. should withdraw from NATO. Russia ... China Before and during his presidency, Trump repeatedly accused China of taking unfair advantage of the U.S. As president, Trump launched a trade war against China that was widely characterized as a failure, sharply increasing tariffs on Chinese goods imported into the U.S. While Trump said that import tariffs are paid by China into the U.S. Treasury, they are paid by American companies that import goods from China. Trump also juxtaposed verbal attacks on China with praise of Chinese Communist Party leader Xi Jinping, which was attributed to trade war negotiations. Trump sanctioned Huawei for alleged ties to Iran, significantly increased visa restrictions on Chinese students and scholars, and classified China as a currency manipulator. After initially praising China for its handling of COVID-19, he began a campaign of criticism starting in March 2020. Trump said he resisted punishing China for its human rights abuses against ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang region for fear of jeopardizing trade negotiations. In July 2020, the Trump administration imposed sanctions and visa restrictions against senior Chinese officials, in response to expanded mass detention camps holding more than a million of the country's Uyghur minority.

I haven't had the time to compare them. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Discussion at Village Pump

started by the same editor as the Talk:Donald_Trump#Discussion_pointer January discussion, also without notifying editors on this page: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#WP:PEIS, resulting in a couple of edits on the main page that added 6,000 bytes (Reduce WP:PEIS and WP:PEIS improvements from WP:VPT courtesy of User:Ahecht). I haven't a clue what the alleged improvement is supposed to be or do. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The PEIS reduction continues. Where do I find the WP guideline on adding #invoke:cite ...| (<ref>{{'''#invoke:cite news|'''|last= |first= |url= |title= |work=[[ ]]|date= |access-date= }}</ref>) to citations? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I doubt such a guideline exists, specific to cites. Someone might know of something about #invoke in general. The point is that it does reduce PEIS (which has a technical limit that has been a problem at this article) at the cost of an increase in file size (which doesn't). I and Nikkimaria reverted the bold edits because we feel they are premature. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Splitting this article

Right now the article is extremely long, a lot of which does not need to be there. I think it might be good to discuss which sections need to be trimmed and split off.

For example, the Presidency section is nearly half the page, and clearly does not all need to be here. There is a separate Presidency of Donald Trump article. This article should not repeat all the points there. We should try to summarise them further Soni (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Izno, Novem Linguae, Locke Cole, and ActivelyDisinterested: - Pinging everyone who discussed adjacent things in the VPT discussion Soni (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• I am still of the opinion that 99% of the presidency stuff should be removed in favor of a summary style section and hatnote link to the main presidency article. That alone will solve the problem. No one should be allowed to add content to that section here. They should be reverted and directed to the main presidency article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  This would be great to do ...have not been able to load the page on my phone in almost a year.... simply too big and times out. This happens to me with articles that are over 15000 words and or over 900 kB of sources and or 25 plus images.... Combining all these makes it impossible load. That said on my PC everything works just fine and looks good. Moxy🍁 20:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  You may need a new phone with more capacity. I have no problem with any articles on my Samsung Galaxy S21 5G 128GB. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  I do have a better phone....but use an old one to see what will be accessible for people with older phones. The vast majority of the world has phones older then 8 years old. All those phones that Americans turn in for an upgrade get recycled and used somewhere in the world. Our goal is to make things accessible to the vast majority of people not just Americans with the newest technology..... that's why we have size limits. Moxy🍁 20:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Most readers are not on desktops, and there proportion bof all readers is only going to increase. Also depending on where they are from they may not have or be unable to access the most modern equipment. The articles suffers heavily from "It works ok for me". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think this section is probably the lowest-hanging fruit, yes. If you look at the Template:Section lengths above, the 4 years of his presidency (out of his 78 years of life, ~5%) is 50% of the current wikitext. Izno (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Considering that he may become the 47th US president on 20 January 2025. His BLP will certainly become even longer. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I trimmed the section a bit, but we should probably trim it further. I might make some more BOLD removals. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I prefer just going a bit more BOLD and using Template:Excerpt style excerpts sourced directly from the Presidency lede. If 99% of the article needs to be trimmed, iterative removal can only go so far. I think that's what @Valjean said above as well, but maybe they were saying something different with a "summary style". Soni (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we have to face the fact that Trump has had a very full and varied life, and we editors will always disagree about what the highlights are. That said, give trimming a go.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Support dramatic trimming over splitting. Way too much of the article is excessive detail for a one-page account of a 77-year life. This is not a 400-page book, but many editors seem to think it is. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

We have trimmed considerably, or we would still be at just below 500,000 bytes despite having added 30,000 bytes since the trim. As for making room for new content just in case TFG is elected again, let's cross that bridge when we get to it. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 09:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe what the other 5-10 editors are saying is that the current trims are just not enough. The article has significant load problems on older devices already, there are sections much longer than even other comparable pages, and a lot of it would benefit from summarising further. Soni (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

"Trimming" is perhaps the wrong word for what I have in mind. I tried "dramatic trimming", but maybe "gutting". Post-2014. Summary style. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Complicating this is the fact that nothing can be removed that's mentioned in the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Any suggestions for the post-2014 gutting that wouldn't involve white-washing, e.g., banning authoritarian actions such as forcibly removing lawful and peaceful demonstrators for a photo-op with a Bible; pardoning family, cronies, and people recommended by cronies and celebrities; considering two of the pardoned felons (Manafort and Stone) for campaign positions (We do not need to list who the 5 people were)? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I think you're conflating "Don't list every event/action that happened" with whitewashing. You do not need every single thing Trump did to be mentioned here to make an accurate summary that also lists things in more depth. In fact, I'd argue that listing nearly everything is more "white-washy" simply because the most pertinent things are "drowned out". Is removing peaceful protesters notable? Sure. For Trump, is it of equal importance as Jan 6? Definitely not.

Focus on scholarly consensus and a selection of the "most notable" things Trump did in his presidency. People who want to learn about these in more depth can go to subarticles, but the article must gut out most of the current detailing Soni (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

It isn't whitewashing, it is summarizing. All of the info would be kept on the pages about those specific topics. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Why wouldn't we be able to remove things mentioned in the lead? —Locke Cole • t • c 09:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

We can cut the president stuff, as we have an article on that. Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Better summarisation and directing readers to articles that cover the specific details in full is definitely the way to go. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I don’t get why size is (again) such a pressing matter for this article (well, actually I do — Village Pump) when Presidency of Donald Trump is much larger. It currently has 533,000 bytes and 907 citations, and there's been no discussion about its size in four years. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

That other articles are also in a bad state isn't an argument to not do anything about this article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Anything that large should probably also be reduced in size, but that one does not have as many sub-articles. No individual person should have a page this long. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Half-joking, half serious: make only section headings with {{Main}}. Zero prose. Just sections and hatnotes. SWinxy (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Presidency draft page

See also: Wikipedia:Summary style

Most editors seem to agree on Presidency section needing severe to very severe cuts. So I have created Draft:Donald_Trump/Presidency where we can collaborate on the Presidency section without affecting the current article's stability. I started off with a simple use of Template:Excerpt because that would cut things down to a reasonable size while keeping it easy to maintain. Either way, once we have a reasonable draft, we should replace the entire Presidency section with it. Soni (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

We already have Presidency of Donald Trump, we do not need two pages on the same topic. Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

This draft is supposed to replace all of Donald_Trump#Presidency_(2017–2021), not be a separate article. We currently use 200K bytes to say nearly everything the Presidency article already says, so I want to get people's opinions and reduce all of that to the minimum manageable amount. I'm starting it as a draft so we can iterate before we actually replace it in Article space. Soni (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Why not just use the article we have? Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I think using the Excerpt template here is a bad idea, since the lead of the Presidency article does not have sources. It might make readers think that the content in that section is unsourced. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

If we add sources to that articles lede (or make a copy of that lede with sources), would that work for the overall section? Soni (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. The lead should be the best possible summary of the article, so just adding sources should make it good enough for a summary style section here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• @Moxy, ActivelyDisinterested, Izno, GoodDay, Jack Upland, Mandruss, Space4Time3Continuum2x, and SWinxy: Pinging everyone else who discussed trimming in the section above. I'm hoping we can establish consensus on a new draft for the Presidency section to replace the current one. Soni (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  Personally, I still do not think that using the Excerpt template is a good idea, because the other article's lead has different goals than this article's section, and is subject to the consensus of that article's talk page and not this one. The summary needs to be trimmed, but this isn't the way we should do it. SXWinxy's proposal would be a good one, if it weren't for the need to make this article work without requiring clicking links. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  One option we could try is making the hatnote more explicit. Put it in prose, like new editors sometimes do before finding out that the template exists. How about this:

  This section only contains a summary of the most important details. For a more detailed description, see Presidency of Donald Trump.

  QuicoleJR (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  Can you clarify what exactly SWinxy's proposal means? Maybe a mock up of it? I tried to parse it a few times but I don't quite follow what it means. Soni (talk) 06:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• If the lead contained sourcing, using "excerpt" would work, but here we are with no sources in the lead. See: Wikipedia:Summary style#Using excerpts for article synchronization. Alternatively, we can copy the lead and add links, or use the excerpt template and add a prose hatnote that explains where to find the sources: "This is only a summary, and the sources are found in the main article." (something like that). This is an opportunity to tweak the PAG. They are not set in stone. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

My first reaction in two words: hell no. Who's going to read that wall of text which has more blue links than plain text? As for the specifics, I got as far as "brokered the Abraham Accords": the next hell no — see consensus #65 (after you click "show", wishing you had purged the page). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I am soliciting feedback so we can change said specifics. For the general case, the current article has much more of a wall of text (as the sections above already show).

With the Abraham Accords, it sounds like a simple sentence change would fix it, to meet #65 anyway. I do not know why you treat Local consensus as this unchanging unbreakable rule for this page. WP:Consensus can change, and the way to change consensus is by discussion (like the one we're having right now). Soni (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think any long-time editors of this article need to be reminded that consensus can change. Twenty percent of the consensus items have been superseded. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

The proposed text reads like an excerpt of the lead, expanded to include material not considered important enough to be mentioned in the lead. It's basically a bullet list without bullets, lacking "structure [] with consistent, reader-friendly layouts and formatting" (WP:MOS). Each item says nothing but "click here if you want to know what this is about". Aside from that, the rewrite aka massive reduction of material would result in quite a few discussions, all going on at the same time. Trump is running for reelection, so IMO now isn't the time to reduce the current summary-level overview of his first presidency. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Trump is running for reelection, so IMO now isn't the time to reduce the current summary-level overview of his first presidency. In fact, that is even more important to clean up the lengthy mess we have currently. But either way, we should never stall any page improvements for a full year just based on outside reasons. If the article can be improved, we should improve it. It'd be silly to stall page improvements for months based on that Soni (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

The lengthy mess, IMO, is a consistently structured, reader-friendly overview. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

We already have the Presidency of Donald Trump page. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Mystery re #invokes and PEIS

Apparently I'm too dumb to figure this out.

PEIS limit is 2,097,152

Immediately before #invokes were added: 1,596,217

Immediately after #invokes were added (in three edits): 1,085,380

So the #invokes reduced PEIS by 510,837

[Ten intervening unrelated edits]

Immediately before my revert: 1,082,220

My revert should have resulted in 1,593,057 (1,082,220 + 510,837), or so I thought

After my revert: Busted PEIS limit (it doesn't tell you by how much)

So I self-reverted.

Immediately after Nikkimaria's edit: 1,836,402

We should be much closer to the original 1,596,217, after allowing for those ten intervening edits

Ping Ahecht and Locke Cole and Nikkimaria. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Your revert introduced a bunch of extra pipe characters, not sure why. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

No, they were introduced by Ahecht and Locke Cole. I'm guessing there is a technical reason.

Anyway, I now see that the first of the "three edits" didn't add #invokes to cites; I ass-umed it did because of the editsum. So I would have to back up and recalculate everything with that in mind. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Invoking the citation modules requires a double pipe, using the templates directly requires a single pipe. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

BOLD Removals

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Why did you revert my trimming of these sections? QuicoleJR (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm also trying to understand HOW to (successfully/"permanently", without being reverted) WikiLink to Brand licensing SOMEWHERE in *THIS* (DT) article. It seems helping a reader understand "licensing" could be helpful??

Thanks.

(it seems I upset the same StarTrek-related-named(?) editor mentioned above…) Curious1i (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted their revert. You discussed the edits while making it, they need to actually explain why they disagree before/while doing the revert. WP:BRD should not be a roundabout "Stall discussions forever". Soni (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand concerns of whitewashing, but no actual information is being removed. It is just being covered on sub-articles about those specific topics. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I responded, in the above Talk:Donald_Trump#Splitting_this_article section where JR mentioned the bold trimming and their intention to do more. (AFAIK, edit summaries aren't part of the discussion cycle, and "can be covered elsewhere" or "we do not need to list these people" doesn't really say a whole lot.) The coverage in sub-articles needs to be mentioned in this article, or how else will readers not as immersed in the Trumpverse as we are know that there's something worthwhile to look up? Since a third editor (you) now reverted my revert, I'll respond in detail tomorrow. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The article has been dominated by a single purpose account. Having experienced editors in other articles is a great asset that is missing from here. Moxy🍁 18:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy: I think calling Space4 an SPA is excessive. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Since you mentioned it, I'll agree. I have zero objection to any editor's "dominance", provided they are dominating with fairness, competence, and commitment to process. But sure, the more competent participation, the better. It's hardly Space4T's fault that we don't have a lot of that.

If a focus on one article constitutes SPA, I'm more guilty than Space4T. I never go to other AP2 articles, and rarely to any other articles. I like the commitment to process at this article, which is not present at many other AP2 articles. And I'm semi-retired. So sue me. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

🙏 Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy: single purpose account? WP:AGF. Experienced editors casting aspersions are not an asset, great or otherwise, on any page. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

We are mentioning the basic topic and linking to the sub-article, so it's not like we are hiding anything. We are just asking them to click the links in the hatnote if they want more specific details. Wikipedia:Summary style is an official guideline. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Soni: Please, restore the consensus version you reverted in this edit until the discussion has resulted in a new consensus. QuicoleRJ and me were both following procedure, you weren't. A wise editor once wrote: I think you're confusing content with edit. The ArbCom restriction is about challenged edits, not challenged content. Once content has been in the article for a certain amount of time (admin NeilN has suggested 4–6 weeks, IIRC, and that image has been in the article for longer than that), its removal is not a challenge-by-reversion but simply a BOLD edit. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Your link isn't right. But I'm okay with restoring (Undo button doesn't work anymore because of intermediate edits, so there's no easy way for me to do so) while we discuss. At the time I reverted you, you had no comments about the removal itself on talk. That's why I reverted, not because I disagree with restrictions or BRD.

Coming back to the discussion, what is the level of detail you think is "necessary" in this article? I'll skip over the whitewashing comments because they're not going to lead us anywhere, I just want to know roughly how much you expect this article to have versus the Presidency article.

On the "Splitting this article" section above, I sense informal but clear consensus in favour of even more drastic reductions. So I'm personally more invested in the overall plan for the article and trying to draft up a reasonable section at Talk:Donald_Trump#Presidency_draft_page Soni (talk) 10:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I have to get back to this later, having trouble keeping up with the increase in editing in the main space and here (and occasionally doing paid work ). We've had numerous short, medium, and lengthy discussions about reductions/drastic reductions, all archived, often of the "10 editors, 20 opinions" variety. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: this (I think you're confusing content with edit. The ArbCom restriction is about challenged edits, not challenged content. Once content has been in the article for a certain amount of time (admin NeilN has suggested 4–6 weeks, IIRC, and that image has been in the article for longer than that), its removal is not a challenge-by-reversion but simply a BOLD edit.) applies to this bold removal of longstanding content and its challenge, as well. If it had been a bold addition, the challenged text would stay out of the article until there's a consensus for inclusion on the Talk page. It's a bold removal, it stays in the article until there's a consensus for exclusion. Please, self-revert this edit. IMO, it is not an improvement to use the vague term "less lethal weapons", which redirects to non-lethal weapons (an article that is tagged as needing verification and lists many other weapons in addition to some of the specific ones named in our cited sources), for the sake of saving 59 bytes. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a bold removal, it stays in the article until there's a consensus for exclusion. What is the basis for this statement? It's not what the arb restriction says.

We don't decide what articles to link on the basis of the overall quality of those articles. The article is of sufficient quality to define the term for those who don't know what it means, though of course if you'd like to improve it by all means do so. The specific weapons used are not a detail that must be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

+1 as the original editor. Most people do not need to know the exact list of weapons law enforcement used, they just need to know that they weren't trying to kill the protesters. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is going nowhere. Hatting so that we can focus on the content itself. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, as to process: If something has been in the article for a long time, it's said to have de facto consensus and a new consensus is required to remove it if the bold removal is contested. Historically, editors at this article haven't disagreed with the concept, but there were recurring disputes about the definition of "a long time". Eventually, admin NeilN suggested 4–6 weeks; since no other "authority" has said any different, that's the number we've used in the rare situations that it's been an issue. It's not what the arb restriction says because the arb restriction does not cover all applicable process, only the part that's different for this article and others like it. I hope this makes a little sense. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC) I haven't reviewed the historic discussions that inform your comment so it's possible I'm missing some nuance. But on its face, if we're talking about general process rather than something specific to either CTOP or this particular article, then we would need to have a discussion first before potentially restoring the contested content. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC) That's not how I understand it, nor how it's been done at this article at least since 2015 when I descended upon it. De facto consensus is a thing, and not a thing we invented. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC) An edit is presumed to have consensus until it is disputed, but once it is disputed that goes away; there's no time limit on when that can happen. That's why "it's been around a long time" is an argument to avoid in discussions. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC) According to that essay. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC) The presumed-until-challenged piece is from EDITCON, a policy. That's why I asked about the basis for the statement, as I'm not aware of any other than essays. But I think this meta-discussion is distracting from the actual content under dispute. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC) It's common to collapse "distracting" process discussion so it's less distracting. But this article is built around process as the only fair way to do things, so process needs discussion when there's disagreement. The disagreements themselves are distracting, as we've seen here, which is why it's important to resolve them to prevent future distracting disagreements. Does this particular process issue warrant a separate discussion? I don't know. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC) It says edit, not addition of content. The removal would seem to be the edit that has been challenged. For the record, I am on your side in terms of excluding the weapon list, I'm just saying that EDITCON is not really the best argument for exclusion. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC) @Nikkimaria, Space4Time3Continuum2x, and Mandruss: Here is the most relevant part of policy I know of, (with some irrelevant exceptions excluded) from WP:CONSENSUS: When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However: Living people. In discussions related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC) I find it compelling that a very experienced and respected admin, NeilN (who is regrettably no longer around), endorsed and even enforced the de facto consensus concept—specifically at this here article about a living person. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC) This policy agrees with you. It says add, modify, or remove, not just add. The question in relation to this policy is whether the BLP exception applies. I'd say it doesn't, as the link specifies that the objection must be BLP-related. I agree with removing it, but I think we should focus on the actual content. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC) Fine with me; focus away. I have no opinion on the actual content. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC) The policy you're quoting is about when discussions end without consensus. The claim that "de facto consensus" (ie longevity) requires retention of disputed content before/during discussion is a different issue. I'm not sure what policy would support the enforcement of that claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC) The wikilink in discussions related to living people links to WP:BLPRESTORE which is about good-faith BLP objections, a high bar for public figures and not the reason why the content was removed in this case. Seems to me that When .. proposals to ... remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit applies. Until the discussion has concluded, the consensus version is the one prior to the bold edit, so your revert of my revert to the consensus version was wrong, no? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC) No. The quote you provided applies after the discussion ends, not until it ends. And at the moment, it's looking more likely to end with consensus for removal. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

To talk about the actual content instead of the policy considerations that may or may not apply, I support exclusion as the editor who originally removed it. First off, the quality of the article linked to is irrelevant to whether the link should be here. The list, featuring five different weapons, is not worth including on Trump's article when the photo-op has its own article, especially since he is not the one who used the weapons. Non-lethal weapons (or less lethal weapons) is easily understandable and covers the relevant parts of the weapons choice. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit in question: replace longstanding content batons, rubber bullets, pepper spray projectiles, stun grenades, and smoke with less lethal weapons. Most readers will probably understand the named weapons, but will probably not understand and have to click "less lethal" or the previous suggestion "non-lethal weapons", and the substitution saves a mere 59 bytes. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

See no reason to believe the average reader will know what a stun grenade is and not what less lethal means (since even without clicking it has a plain English meaning). And regardless of the total byte count, this is a level of detail that doesn't need to be here. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

+1. Less lethal/Non-lethal is a self-explanatory term, while the weapon list is an excessive amount of detail. Also, the concept of stun grenades is no more common than less lethal weapons, and much less common than non-lethal weapons. Overall, I really don't think that it needs to be included here. Readers who really want to see what weapons were used can go to the photo-op's article. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of content proposed for removal

1. Conflict of interest. A self-dealing president, spending tax-dollars (e.g. billing the Secret Service top dollars) at the properties he hasn't divested himself of (also golfing a lot after calling his predecessor out for golfing a lot less).

Sentence on visiting Trump properties proposed for deletion
Trump visited a Trump Organization property on 428 (nearly one in three) of the 1,461 days of his presidency and is estimated to have played 261 rounds of golf, one every 5.6 days.

2. Quote from New York Times. It's the opinion of a legal expert at Harvard Law School's Environmental & Energy Law Program, quoted in a newspaper of record.

Sentence proposed for deletion: Trump's actions while president have been called "a very aggressive attempt to rewrite our laws and reinterpret the meaning of environmental protections"

Trump rolled back more than 100 federal environmental regulations, including those that curbed greenhouse gas emissions, air and water pollution, and the use of toxic substances. He weakened protections for animals and environmental standards for federal infrastructure projects, and expanded permitted areas for drilling and resource extraction, such as allowing drilling in the Arctic Refuge. Trump's actions while president have been called "a very aggressive attempt to rewrite our laws and reinterpret the meaning of environmental protections".

3. Commuting sentence of Alice Marie Johnson, Kim Kardashian connection. Meh — withdrawing objection to removal. Sentence of middle-management drug trafficker commuted while the applications of other people (who moved far less "produce" but don't have the celebrity connection) through the normal DOJ channels didn't make it to TFG's desk - a feature, not a bug.

Johnson/Kardashian
Following a request by celebrity Kim Kardashian, Trump commuted the life sentence of Alice Marie Johnson, who had been convicted of drug trafficking.

4. Pardons. Behavior typical of authoritarian leaders: pardoning family, cronies, and people recommended by cronies and celebrities. Trump is considering two of the pardoned felons (Manafort and Stone) for campaign positions (CNN, Telegraph).

Sentence proposed for deletion: Among them were Michael Flynn; Roger Stone, whose 40-month sentence for lying to Congress, witness tampering, and obstruction he had already commuted in July; and Paul Manafort.
and five people convicted as a result of investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential elections. Among them were Michael Flynn; Roger Stone, whose 40-month sentence for lying to Congress, witness tampering, and obstruction he had already commuted in July; and Paul Manafort.

5. Muslim ban. IMO the specific is better than the generalization. The proposed new text "certain Muslim-majority countries" instead of naming the countries makes me wonder which countries. When I hear "Muslim" followed by "security concerns", I think of 9/11 and Saudi-Arabia (financed by Saudi-Arabian money, and the terrorists were mostly Saudi citizens, none of them from any of the banned countries).

Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen
On January 27, 2017, Trump signed Executive Order 13769, which suspended admission of refugees for 120 days and denied entry to citizens of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen for 90 days, citing security concerns.

The "Presidency" article is much less read than this one, so when we don't mention actions or names, they're effectively hidden. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, I'm just saying that not everything can stay in the article. The amount of stuff to mention will only go up from here, especially if he is re-elected in November. Eventually, we will have to remove relevant and well-sourced info simply because there is too much to cover here. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

To address some of your more specific concerns, I think #5 can stay for now, since your objection makes sense. #1 is probably relevant enough to stay at the moment, but I think we should trim the specific numbers and just say that he visited the properties on roughly 1 in 3 days of his presidency. I still think #4 should probably go, but your objection does make sense, and there are other things in the article that we can trim first. As for #2, I am going to push back on that one. This person is so important, has been relevant for so long, and has received so much media coverage that I do not think that we should include any quotes that aren't by him, with very few exceptions. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I reinserted per the above, removed Flynn's name from the sentence on pardons. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Adding this reference to the worst presidents clause in the lead

Hi, I would like to gain a consensus on implementing this source in the lead that supports the sentence that says that scholars and historians ranking Trump as one of the worst presidents. The text doesn’t need to be changed. Just adding a source. Source: [6] Interstellarity (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm philosophically opposed to the two citations we have there already already (the only citations in the lead). I don't believe in accommodating readers who stop reading at the lead. I'd prefer to have that added in the body. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Redacted 00:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Mandruss. Trump is certainly in the race for worst president if not already the winner. But, too early for an encyclopedia to say such in the lead. I'm fine with this in the body as a scholarly/historical view. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Mandruss. Mandruss opposes the new lead citation, not the lead content (which is already there). That's a separate topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, misunderstood. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Just a note that I have removed the existing lead citations in the paragraph. If anyone objects to their removal, people are free to make their case below. Interstellarity (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

See related current consensus item 58. It supersedes my personal philosophy, but AFAICT it doesn't necessarily preclude your edit. I see no clear consensus to include those two cites. Granted, the hidden comment removed in your edit disagrees, but the hidden comments aren't 100% trustworthy or the final word. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I object to the removal:

1) We previously [discussed] which sentences would benefit from having inline citations, which is where the citations in the lead came from—to remove the citations should require another discussion, methinks. I would suggest a self-revert until such a discussion has taken place. We came to a consensus on which sentences to add inline citations to; naturally, repealing a previous consensus requires a consensus to repeal. I don't want to dig through the archives to find said consensus, but I'd like to believe that the fact that the citations are there to begin with is enough, considering this page and its intolerance for lead citations.

2) We include citations for controversial statements because guidelines ask us to. See WP:LEADCITE (which is terribly worded and much too vague IMO): The verifiability policy states that all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports it. In the case of the phrases that were codified in the lead, editors here at Donald Trump decided that those few phrases were covered by this section of the guideline, and, as such, required inline citations. That part of the guideline was codified in the consensus list because, for reasons I don't understand, editors here are very strongly opposed to citations in the lead, and the consensus list is much more powerful than measly guidelines.

3) Even if lead citations are redundant, unnecessary, etc—what's actually wrong with them? Like, seriously. What's the actual problem with including them in the lead? Byte count? PEIS limit? Are they too distracting? I have tried to understand this point of view many times and I simply cannot. Why should readers have to hunt down a citation scattered somewhere in the body when we can just... hand them one in the lead? As far as I can tell, they don't hurt anyone in any substantial way.

4) Mandruss, including a citation in the lead when there are separate citations in the body is a situation that almost falls under the jurisdiction of MOS:REPEATLINK IMO, a guideline that you previously advocated for. I consider these two scenarios to be analogous in some respects. Cessaune [talk] 04:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

the consensus list is much more powerful than measly guidelines. As it should be. Guidelines are only guidelines (especially MoS guidelines, imho). They are to be considered but are not binding. WP editing is not about robotically following rules.

I at least looked for consensus for those two citations. It sounds like you didn't, and are assuming it exists merely because the citations have existed for a long time. Faulty assumption in my opinion.

4) What you see there are two competing principles. In the discussion you linked, I said: If I'm a reader, I don't particularly care to go hunting for a link elsewhere in the article when I need one. If I'm a reader, I don't need a link in the lead unless I stop reading at the lead. As I said, I don't believe in accommodating that. If I'm a reader, I can go find the sources in the body if I really care about verifiability. Otherwise, I can assume that the article's editors know what they're doing.

Oh... and that discussion was about wikilinks, not citations (as is REPEATLINK), although I suppose the same principles apply somewhat. (As you suggested, I belatedly notice.)

And yes, many editors feel that the absence of citations results in a much cleaner lead. I'm one of them. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

faulty assumption—I didn't assume. I merely would "like to believe". No, I didn't dig through the archives. I'm lazy and don't want to.

I think that the absence of citations in this case results in a negligibly cleaner lead. Like, come on. Do you genuinely think that the lead feels noticeably less cluttered without the citations? If so, I don't understand that opinion. We aren't January 6 United States Capitol attack. It was two cites. They didn't split a sentence in half. Hell, they didnt split anything—they were at the end of a paragraph. Next to each other. In principle, maybe the lead looks better without citations. Maybe not. But in practice? Really? Two citations? much cleaner? I don't know about all that.

Apparently we browse Wikipedia in a fundamentally different way. I lead-surf. I jump between articles. I click on links in the lead without reading the body. Or I control-click, leave and come back. I'm skittish. I don't linger. Does that mean that I am not worthy of accomodation? Because what you're saying here, IMO, is that readers who don't read past the lead aren't worthy of our time. Well, damn. That's, like, a lot of readers, at least according to meta:Research:Which parts of an article do readers read and this.

Simply put: different people view Wikipedia differently. IMO we should cater to what people actually do in practice (read the lead and leave) and not to what we actually want people to do in theory (read the body). I don't think we can or should expect readers to want to read an article of this length, or to dig through it to find information, and readers who don't do so/don't want to do so are IMO as worthy of accomodation as any other reader. I don't see why a reader who doesn't read past the lead is, in practice, any different from a reader who does, and it feels wrong to me, the idea that we should make decisions based on how we want readers to act (assuming that there is a way that editors generally want readers to act) and not based on how people actually act. Cessaune [talk] 05:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you genuinely think that the lead feels noticeably less cluttered without the citations? Yes. I try to be genuine whenever I can.

But I'm speaking generally about lead citations, not those two alone. No, I don't think the removal of those two cites significantly improved lead cleanliness. I'm talking about the larger issue.

If we can find a consensus for those two, or reach one here, by all means restore them. Until then, I oppose and will wait for other voices. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

In this case I would rather operate on what happens in practice. There's been two citations in the lead for like two years, and that number was unlikely to change. Sure, maybe citations make a lead feel more cluttered, but we weren't at that point and we are very unlikely to get to that point. Cessaune [talk] 12:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

As I am unsure it should even be in the body I am sure it should not be in the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

It's an article about the Presidential Greatness Project. We discussed the survey briefly but it didn't make it into the article, so IMO we shouldn't use the cite in the lead. It isn't mentioned at Historical rankings of presidents of the United States, either, although they do mention the 2018 survey. Removing the citations against the current consensus — shouldn't we establish a new consensus first? (For the record, I also oppose having citations in the lead, "strongly", to use TFG's favorite adverb.) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Removing the citations against the current consensus — shouldn't we establish a new consensus first? Absolutely, if a consensus exists to include those two cites. No one has found one yet. Care to try? ―Mandruss ☎ 10:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

No, and yay. I thought we had a consensus to add cites to the sentence but after taking another look at #58: yay. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Trump's Bible

Should we mention it? See [7]. Jack Upland (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Why, its just another product. Slatersteven (talk) 09:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

We're mentioning it, at Business_career_of_Donald_Trump#Branding_and_licensing and The_Trump_Organization#Related_ventures_and_investments. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

While it is a relevant piece of information, there is simply no room to mention it here. Like Space4 said, it is mentioned in several other articles, so it isn't like we are just ignoring it. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Current consensus section on this page

Talk:Donald Trump#Current Consensus seems to have an extremely long list that pretty much pushes everything down on this talk page permanently. I hatted the list at Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus but it seems @Mandruss preferred it this way? I guess the "frequent editors" on this page are used to this format, but I don't think anywhere on enWiki uses this.

I like hatted simply because that's what we do for nearly everything else that's permanent on talk (headings and such) so they continue being readable. Hatting would also be kinda a "best of both worlds" as we keep having the consensus at a prominent place in this page, but it's hatted so everyone isn't forced to scroll through 3 screens just to get to any discussion here. Soni (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

forced to scroll through 3 screens just to get to any discussion here. ?? The ToC precedes the consensus list. Nobody "gets to any discussion here" by scrolling through the page (I hope). It's either via the ToC or the page history.

I don't think anywhere on enWiki uses this. So? Innovation is not evil. Talk:Joe Biden uses this, albeit on a much smaller scale. It should use it a lot more, imo, but I don't edit there. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Nobody "gets to any discussion here" by scrolling through the page (I hope). I actually do. I usually only use TOCs if I'm only reading a specific section on a talk page, otherwise it's just easier to skim through the entire page to quick-check discussions.

But also... What purpose does the unhatted consensus section serve? What is the benefit we get from having it fully expanded instead? We can still link to the section as normal, and show/hide is pretty intuitive regardless (we use them in the consensus section ourselves) Soni (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think you're unusual in that respect. As I said in my revert, there hasn't been another peep about this in 8 years (to my knowledge). In any case, it takes me all of five seconds to scroll through the consensus list. Is your time really that valuable?

Just (1) greater visibility, and (2) no need to click [show]. Obviously, different editors will weigh these things differently, which is why we're here.

that's what we do for nearly everything else that's permanent on talk (headings and such) - I don't know what hatted headings you're referring to. Certainly not section headings. As for the "top material", or whatever you call it (banners?), the consensus list is actually essential to the day-to-day operation of this article. Apples and oranges.

Here's what we know for sure; the rest is unsubstantiated speculation.

1. One editor (you) has to scroll through the list.
2. Every editor using the list would have to click [show], every time they used it.

Do the math. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Do the math. Thanks for the lesson in condescension. I definitely needed to answer my question ("greater visibility and no need to click [show]").

As I said in my revert, there hasn't been another peep about this in 8 years (to my knowledge). As someone said above, nobody has apparently raised concerns about Presidency article's size in 4 years. Does not mean we don't need to change it.

I see a simple change that'd improve the readability, I proposed it. Now if other editors prefer it hatted/unhatted, they can say so, and I'll defer to consensus. Soni (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Me too. I've pretty much exhausted my arguments. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I personally don't think that it's a big deal, bt you do raise some valid points. I don't think anyone is substantially helped or harmed by it in its current state though. Cessaune [talk] 12:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it's clutter and should be hatted with the explanatory text: "This is a list of the results of previous discussions on this talk page that reached a consensus on various issues for this article." I think the clutter is more apparent to editors who are new to the article than it is to editors who have been living with it for years. It has some similarity to the real life problem of hoarding, where the hoarding homeowner just gets used to the clutter and doesn't want to change. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Clutter right back at ya. Consensus is one of the basic concepts of Wikipedia editing, no definition necessary. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Instead of displaying the long list it would look like this.

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 .

List of some previous discussions that reached a consensus.

Bob K31416 (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I like it unhatted because then I don't have to click it open when referencing a violated consensus in an edit summary. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I made the change of hatting just to let editors have some experience with it so they can better decide whether to hat or not to hat. I request that we leave it hatted for 3 days before anyone reverts it. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Hatted or unhatted, I would prefer any obsolete or superceded consensi to be separated out or just removed from the list.

The main reason for keeping the full list is searchability, so that shouldn't be affected if all obsolete items get removed in a separate hatnote. At least the least important third of the list will no longer be a deal then Soni (talk) 11:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose that, but thankfully it's off-topic in this particular thread. Experience has taught us that it's best to put separate issues in separate threads, to the extent possible. You're likely to get more thorough consideration in a separate discussion. The two issues are related, I grant, but there's no real need to combine them in one thread. A new subsection of this section would be fine, and then the two would be sure to be archived together. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I like it unhatted because then a search of the page for the key words will show that content in the FAQ. When it's hatted, it doesn't show. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

(It took a bit of effort to understand your comment, since we don't call it a FAQ.) That's another good point; collapsed content is invisible to browser Find functions. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Thi is a very coherent argument. It's nice to be able to reference a previous consensus by simply pressing ctrl+f and typing in '58.' or something similar. Cessaune [talk] 00:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

To be clear and fair, collapsing doesn't prevent the use of ctrl+f; it just requires an extra step (clicking [show]). So this argument kind of falls under a point previously made: Every editor using the list would have to click [show], every time they used it. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Oops! My bad. Fortunately, you all got my point. Hatted content is hidden from view AND from searches. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Operation Warp Speed

I think Operation Warp Speed should be mentioned in the lede, while discussing his response to COVID-19. It is really significant! Tejas Subramaniam (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Extensively covered by article Operation Warp Speed at much more depth than this article could cover. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 20:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Trump's push to speed up vaccine development was first criticized as going against the experts, but then the vaccine came out faster than the experts thought it would.

April 29, 2020, Trump Seeks Push to Speed Vaccine, Despite Safety Concerns, NY Times

November 17, 2020, Trump scores a long-awaited coronavirus win with vaccines on the way, CNN

December 21, 2020, Biden receives Covid-19 vaccine, praises Trump's 'Operation Warp Speed', NBC

There was a previous discussion here. Thank you for your suggestion, but I don't think there is any chance that it will be included. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)