Talk:Donald Trump: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Content deleted Content added
Extended confirmed users
2,404 edits
Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers
9,713 edits
OneClickArchived "Just a reminder in case someone still has a fair mind..." to Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 168
Line 361: Line 361:


:The main article has more info on the [[Donald_Trump_photo_op_at_St._John's_Church#Ashburton_House_fire|fire in the basement nursery]] of the parish house. The sources say "there was a small fire", "a fire was set", etc., so I suppose we could change the wording to "where a small fire had been set during the protests the night before" but I don't really see that it makes much difference. You can find most WaPo articles on the Wayback Machine, although sometimes you have to open several of the archived versions until you find one without the paywall notice. [https://web.archive.org/web/20200712174500/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/barr-personally-ordered-removal-of-protesters-near-white-house-leading-to-use-of-force-against-largely-peaceful-crowd/2020/06/02/0ca2417c-a4d5-11ea-b473-04905b1af82b_story.html This] is the article; doesn't mention the fire except for a WH spokesman saying that "rioters attempted to burn down" the church. Your link to the ATF press release is missing a hyphen. [https://www.atf.gov/news/pr/indictments-issued-rewards-still-offered-open-atf-arson-cases This one] works. [[User:Space4Time3Continuum2x |<span style="color: #3200CC;">'''Space4T'''ime3Continuum2x</span>]][[User_talk:Space4Time3Continuum2x |🖖]] 16:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
:The main article has more info on the [[Donald_Trump_photo_op_at_St._John's_Church#Ashburton_House_fire|fire in the basement nursery]] of the parish house. The sources say "there was a small fire", "a fire was set", etc., so I suppose we could change the wording to "where a small fire had been set during the protests the night before" but I don't really see that it makes much difference. You can find most WaPo articles on the Wayback Machine, although sometimes you have to open several of the archived versions until you find one without the paywall notice. [https://web.archive.org/web/20200712174500/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/barr-personally-ordered-removal-of-protesters-near-white-house-leading-to-use-of-force-against-largely-peaceful-crowd/2020/06/02/0ca2417c-a4d5-11ea-b473-04905b1af82b_story.html This] is the article; doesn't mention the fire except for a WH spokesman saying that "rioters attempted to burn down" the church. Your link to the ATF press release is missing a hyphen. [https://www.atf.gov/news/pr/indictments-issued-rewards-still-offered-open-atf-arson-cases This one] works. [[User:Space4Time3Continuum2x |<span style="color: #3200CC;">'''Space4T'''ime3Continuum2x</span>]][[User_talk:Space4Time3Continuum2x |🖖]] 16:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

== Just a reminder in case someone still has a fair mind... ==
{{atop|Please read [[Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias]]. Closing per [[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus|current consensus]] item 61. <del>Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow.</del> &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]] 04:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC) Redacted 16:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC){{pb}}Re-closed by {{noping|Objective3000}} at 21:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC): [[Special:Diff/1220289856]] &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]] 12:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)}}
This is an unbelievably biased article. In the opening paragraph, so much attention is given to trumps "business failures" and bankruptcy filings, without mentioning he is one of the richest men who ever lived (a billionaire). Would someone who never knew trump surmise that he is a billionaire from that opening summary paragraph? And unfortunately, it gets worse from there as you read on.

I know that this will fall on deaf ears, but I want to remind the original purpose of wikipedia: to document and convey information. Not to lead people into thinking a certain way. [[Special:Contributions/71.247.12.176|71.247.12.176]] ([[User talk:71.247.12.176|talk]]) 03:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

:This comment does make one specific point, and we should answer specific points: {{tq| In the opening paragraph, so much attention is given to trumps "business failures" and bankruptcy filings, without mentioning he is one of the richest men who ever lived (a billionaire).}} We talk about Trump's wealth at [[Donald Trump#Wealth]] and [[Wealth of Donald Trump]]. His net worth has never been confirmed, but is estimated in the billions. So, we give it attention. Should it be in that first paragraph of the lead? We could add a sentence at the end to the effect of {{tq|Trump's net worth is estimated at}} if there's consensus for that. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 14:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
::To be frank, no it should not, as we do not even have any real idea how much it is. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 14:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
:::I do not think it should either, but it is only fair that we consider it. I find it interesting that this IP takes it as a given that he actually is {{tq|one of the richest men who ever lived (a billionaire)}} based mostly on Trump's word. But there is also the Forbes estimate. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 14:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
::::Which changes. He may well be one of the richest men who have ever lived, but then what we care about is how he compares to todays mega-billionaires, not every human who has ever lived. Trump is not in the top 10, or the top 500. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
::::The IP address is making a specific point without referring to a single reliable source to support it. Trump isn’t notable for being "one of the richest men who ever lived" or one of the richest people today, just for claiming to be "really rich". [[User:Space4Time3Continuum2x |<span style="color: #3200CC;">'''Space4T'''ime3Continuum2x</span>]][[User_talk:Space4Time3Continuum2x |🖖]] 16:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
::::I remember a time when a post with this accusatory tone would have been summarily removed without reply. One properly gets as much respect as they give. Any suggestions for improvement could have and should have been handled separately so as to allow early archival&mdash;we need this stuff off the page as soon as possible short of shooting on sight. Now, per #13, early archival is off the table. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]] 16:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::Pity we must leave such silliness like {{tq|one of the richest men who ever lived}} here. Jeff Bezos is worth 50 times Trump. John D. Rockefeller was worth over 100 times as much as Trump. That's just the US. Mansa Musa was likely worth far more. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 17:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::And that's assuming that the commonly given figures for Trump's worth are roughly correct. The longer these trials go on, the more convinced I am that his worth has been highly inflated. I wouldn't b surprised if the true value is only about $500 million. --[[User:Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Khajidha|contributions]]) 20:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::I stretched out and worked my AGF muscle on this one. Let them see on r/TheDonald or whatever forum they congregate on that we will consider specific ideas, even with some of that accusatory tone, and not everything falls on "deaf ears". &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 17:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::Here's a general question that may or may not have some relevance. Is it OK to write a Wikipedia article that is biased against a terrible person who is a threat to society? [[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 21:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::We are not here to [[WP:RGW]]. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 22:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::Whatever the forum, they’re probably trading tips on how to successfully troll WP editors: accuse them of bias, add a sentence that sounds as if it was written for Colbert’s opening monologue, and sit back and watch them argue amongst themselves on the Talk page. "Surmise" — yeah, that’s what WP is about, [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/surmise thoughts or ideas based on scanty evidence], or no evidence, as in this case. For one of the richest persons of all time, see [[Fugger family#Jakob Fugger "the Rich"]]. [[User:Space4Time3Continuum2x |<span style="color: #3200CC;">'''Space4T'''ime3Continuum2x</span>]][[User_talk:Space4Time3Continuum2x |🖖]] 11:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::When the opening message said, "mentioning he is one of the richest men who ever lived (a billionaire)," do you think it may be saying that Trump was a billionaire and that alone makes him one of the richest men that ever lived? It looks like putting in the lead that Trump is a billionaire would satisfy the opening message. I'll leave it to you to add to the lead that Trump is a billionaire, if you agree that it should be put there. Thanks. [[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 14:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::::That’s not my decision to make — I don’t own this page, no matter what another editor said recently [[File:Face-angel.svg|20px]]. According to consensus #5, the lead once mentioned that {{tq|Forbes estimates his net worth to be [$x.x] billion}}. It was superseded by consensus #47 which says to "not mention Trump's net worth or Forbes ranking (or equivalents from other publications) in the lead, nor in the infobox". Forbes is our source for Trump’s net worth in the "Wealth" section, and it’s probably the source for his net worth reported in other RS, so which source would we use? IMO, his billionaire status, real or not, isn’t one of the most important points of his bio per [[MOS:LEAD]]. (Billionaires who are (estimated to be) worth between $2.3 billion and $4.7 billion are a dime a dozen these days.) [[User:Space4Time3Continuum2x |<span style="color: #3200CC;">'''Space4T'''ime3Continuum2x</span>]][[User_talk:Space4Time3Continuum2x |🖖]] 16:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article could include "billionaire" in the following way.
:'''Donald John Trump''' (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and billionaire who served as the 45th [[president of the United States]] from 2017 to 2021.
Good luck. [[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 21:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

:Hmm. We don't do that for Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk in the first sentence who are worth vastly more. 60 years ago, Sen. Dirksen said "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money." I could find some use for a billion. But since he's not on the "richest" lists, not sure it's lead worthy. Certainly OK for the body. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 21:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
::Yet, there are many billionaires in wikipedia who are described as such first and foremost on their page.
::And of course, shifting the topic to whether Trump is a billionaire or not is an attempt by the editors to avoid the smell of their own body odor; whether he is a billionaire or 500 million aire is irrelevant; in either case he is unbelievably rich relative to all human existence, and something a reader would not glean from the description, which disproportionately describe his business failures and bankruptcies. [[Special:Contributions/71.247.12.176|71.247.12.176]] ([[User talk:71.247.12.176|talk]]) 20:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
:::Do we say that (say) Musk is one of the richest men who have ever lived? [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 21:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
::::I am not arguing it needs to be stated explicitly; i am saying it is true, and that reading the article should, directly or indirectly, give that impression.
::::Reading the article as it is, it appears Trump is largely a failed businessman who likely doesn't have much money (specifically, the part about so many bankruptcies and business failures and lawsuits). To the articles credit it does mention "some successful ventures" by licensing his name (although even that is biased imo, as if to suggest his only success has come from trivialities - there is no mention of his massive real estate empire and world renowned trump tower).
::::My point is this article paints a fake, bad image of trumps wealth. And my accusation is that it does so because the authors of this article do not like trump, and want him to be regarded badly. I may be incorrect in that accusation; but regardless, a fair minded reader would believe the same thing, based on the current state of the article. [[Special:Contributions/71.247.12.176|71.247.12.176]] ([[User talk:71.247.12.176|talk]]) 21:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::Please read [[WP:AGF]] and [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:CIV]] and this article. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 21:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}
Are you all sure you want to run the Talk page this way? I think it gives a bad impression of suppressing dissent. [[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 13:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
:You think this nonsense needs to continue? Consensus does not require unanimity. I should've left this closed in the first place. In fact I probably should have undone your comment with the edit summary "closed is closed" rather than reply. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 13:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
::The discussion was mostly carried by editors other than the IP. I think you made some good points as did others. [[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 14:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
:Repeatedly accusing editors of unfair bias has never gone anywhere, will never go anywhere, and can't go anywhere. Even where true, such editors are not going to suddenly find Jesus and change their ways because they have been called out. So why do it? This tone has continued through the IP's latest comment, unmitigated by {{tq|I may be incorrect in that accusation}}, along with a lot of [[WP:NOR]] vio that has regrettably been enabled by others. I have no problem with "suppressing" that. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]] 14:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
:Our consensus list has no shortage of Trump-favorable consensuses that belie a claim of widespread anti-Trump bias at this article. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]] 14:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
::1) I'm of the opinion that an involved editor who willingly engages in discussion should NEVER close a discussion, barring something truly extreme happening, and this sets a terrible precedent IMO.
::2) Nothing the user did was egregious enough to warrant closure IMO. This is the exact kind of behavior that discourages new editors—engaging in discussion and then closing the discussion without even allowing the user time to read the policies that we linked.
::3) I think that closing an active discussion is problematic at best. If we are willing to engage in discussion then that suggests that there is actually something worthy of discussion. If there ''wasn't'' something worthy of discussion here, then the discussion would have never taken place.
::I think that any closure along these lines needs to be codified in the consensus list before it can be considered valid, and, as it stands, I would oppose such an item. [[User:Cessaune|<span style="color:#f70a90">Cessaune</span>]] [[User talk:Cessaune|'''<span style="color:#000000"><nowiki>[</nowiki>talk<nowiki>]</nowiki></span>''']] 14:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
:::The OP and the title of this section both violate policies. And the eitor is now arguing at the Flat Earth article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flat_Earth#Why_does_this_article_take_a_stance?] that we shouldn't state the Earth is not flat, but leave it up to the reader to decide. Such time sinks cannot continue forever. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 14:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
::::I do think it is a bit off to close a thread you are involved with,. but I agree with the close. "I am not arguing it needs to be stated explicitly; I am saying it is true, and that reading the article should, directly or indirectly, give that impression." killed it really, if they are not arguing for it to be said, but are arguing for us to say it, there is no agreement to be had. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 14:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes, time sinks cannot continue forever. But summarily closing a discussion as an involved editor is something that no one should ever do. And the points related to closure that are being made weren't brought up in the discussion or the edit summary. At the very least, we need to articulate ''why'' we are prematurely closing a thread in detail, which didn't happen. [[User:Cessaune|<span style="color:#f70a90">Cessaune</span>]] [[User talk:Cessaune|'''<span style="color:#000000"><nowiki>[</nowiki>talk<nowiki>]</nowiki></span>''']] 14:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::I didn't close the section. After it was closed and incorrectly continued, I moved the additional text into the close window. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 14:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::That's a distinction without a difference. And Muboshgu's rationale was valid, regardless of the outcome. [[User:Cessaune|<span style="color:#f70a90">Cessaune</span>]] [[User talk:Cessaune|'''<span style="color:#000000"><nowiki>[</nowiki>talk<nowiki>]</nowiki></span>''']] 14:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::A discussion is not supposed to continue after a close, so I moved the continuation into the close window. My edit summary stated: {{tq| The IP can start a new topic if they find a source and argument that fits Wikipedia guidelines.}} How many angels are there on the head of a pin? [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 15:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Why not? If people think that restarting a discussion is warranted, then they can restart it. I don't see any reason why anyone should be barred from doing that. [[User:Cessaune|<span style="color:#f70a90">Cessaune</span>]] [[User talk:Cessaune|'''<span style="color:#000000"><nowiki>[</nowiki>talk<nowiki>]</nowiki></span>''']] 15:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
:::We already have the {{tq|terrible precedent}} in consensus #61, and it has proven its value. Are you suggesting we should revisit #61? Muboshgu has stated their regret for keeping this open, and without that it would've been archived four days ago. Others just followed Muboshgu's lead&mdash;this kind of blue-sky, forum-like discussion is often hard to resist&mdash;and I doubt they would object to re-re-closure now. They are free to correct me. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]] 14:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
::::Muboshgu's reopening nullified the original consensus #61 close, and to belatedly close based on #61 is not within the consensus item's scope IMO. The "terrible precedent" that I speak of isn't related to #61 at all. Replying with a link to [[Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias]] hardly makes you an involved editor; Objective3000 was ''definitely'' an involved editor by any reasonable metric. [[User:Cessaune|<span style="color:#f70a90">Cessaune</span>]] [[User talk:Cessaune|'''<span style="color:#000000"><nowiki>[</nowiki>talk<nowiki>]</nowiki></span>''']] 14:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::I, Mandruss, an uninvolved editor, hereby endorse Objective3000's re-close. Happy now? &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]] 14:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::In fact, no, per my original comment above. [[User:Cessaune|<span style="color:#f70a90">Cessaune</span>]] [[User talk:Cessaune|'''<span style="color:#000000"><nowiki>[</nowiki>talk<nowiki>]</nowiki></span>''']] 15:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I would be happy to see this reclosed again. And I am not inclined to stop the auto archiving again in the future. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 21:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I thought I'd look into psychology that might be related to talk pages and I happened on the Wikipedia article [[Groupthink]]. Here's an excerpt.
:Groupthink requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore, groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup". Members of a group can often feel under peer pressure to "go along with the crowd" for fear of "rocking the boat" or of how their speaking out will be perceived by the rest of the group.
[[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 15:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
::When you can't come up with an argument that fits Wikipedia policies and guidelines, just insult everybody. DJT is not {{tq|one of the richest men who ever lived}} as claimed by the OP. This has nothing to do with groupthink. It's simply false. Your response shows the value in section closes that go off the rails. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 15:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
::Unuseful here, as you could call any set of like-minded editors an "ingroup" or an "outgroup". A better place for such discussion might be [[WP:VPM]], but you wouldn't get much community support for an idea that effectively undermines or erodes [[WP:CONSENSUS]]. This is just more forum-like discussion, now taken to a meta level. It's not what article talk pages are for. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]] 16:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

::Bob, you haven't edited this article in ages, and back when you did you used to lose argument after argument, i'd wager that greater 90% of the positions you staked out here were failures. you coming back like this now just reeks of bitterness. do everyone, including yourself a favor, just unwatch this article. [[User:ValarianB|ValarianB]] ([[User talk:ValarianB|talk]]) 19:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
:::To be fair, this isn't the first time that Bob has popped their head around here in recent months. And your final sentence is bordering on [[WP:UNCIVIL]], maybe. [[User:Cessaune|<span style="color:#f70a90">Cessaune</span>]] [[User talk:Cessaune|'''<span style="color:#000000"><nowiki>[</nowiki>talk<nowiki>]</nowiki></span>''']] 21:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
::::Look at the last many posts in this thread. Do you actually think there is anything here that is not a waste of editor time? It should be closed. As I said in my edit summary when I moved the close bottom, it can be restarted in a new section given an actual reliably sourced rational. Wouldn't that have been better instead of endless, gotcha wikilawyering? [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 00:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::In fact I'm inclined to agree with you, but what you're saying is tangential to my point. [[User:Cessaune|<span style="color:#f70a90">Cessaune</span>]] [[User talk:Cessaune|'''<span style="color:#000000"><nowiki>[</nowiki>talk<nowiki>]</nowiki></span>''']] 04:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


== Possible bias ==
== Possible bias ==

Revision as of 08:40, 24 April 2024

    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 purge this page.

    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
    )

    12. The article title is

    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 (BSEcon.)", does not mention Fordham University. (April 2017, April 2017, Aug 2020, Dec 2020
    )

    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
    the policy's third revision. (Aug 2017, Nov 2017, Dec 2017, Jan 2018, Jan 2018) Wording updated (July 2018) and again (Sep 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

    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
    )

    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.

    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 stating that they haven't produced clear results. (RfC May 2020)

    45. Superseded by #48
    There is no consensus to mention the COVID-19 pandemic in the lead section. (RfC May 2020, July 2020) (Superseded by RfC Aug 2020)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Trump 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. [1] Dream Focus 01:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    We need to take a longer view look at the stock than just IPO day.[2] – Muboshgu (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply
    ]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply
    ]
    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)[reply]
    Hello! First post! I just wanted to remind everyone that Trump’s net worth is nothing less than the subject of one of his lawsuits -- the one in Manhattan unless I am much mistaken. It is risky to interpret his real wealth in an encyclopedia when the subject is currently being litigated! A disclaimer would not be out of place here if you absolutely must publish a dollar amount certain (I wouldn’t). That’s my 465 ¢. ;) Andicu2 (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (Hint: The word "nonsense" doesn't strengthen an argument.) ―Mandruss  05:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    We are
    not a newspaper. We are an encyclopedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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: [2] Interstellarity (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Hear, hear! --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Ah, misunderstood. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)
    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)[reply
    ]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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 the ToC, the page history, or one's contribs page.
    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) Redacted 06:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Me too. I've pretty much exhausted my arguments. ―Mandruss  09:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @Soni: Why don't you just click the first item underneath "Consensus" in the table of contents and skim through the entire page from there? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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 purge this page.
    List of some previous discussions that reached a consensus.
    Bob K31416 (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    I unhatted. It's been three days + one. Low participation, 4:2 in favor of status quo (ante doesn't really apply for "letting editors have some experience with it" but what do I know). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikilinks in 6th paragraph of lead

    Hello, I would like to propose the following paragraph include wikilinks to Impeachment in the United States, the First impeachment of Donald Trump, and the Second impeachment of Donald Trump: "Trump is the only American president to have been impeached twice. After he tried to pressure Ukraine in 2019 to investigate Biden, he was impeached by the House of Representatives for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted by the Senate in February 2020. The House impeached him again in January 2021 for incitement of insurrection. The Senate acquitted him in February. Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history."

    I would like a wiklink to appear on or around the word "impeached" in the first sentence with a link to Impeachment in the United States. This seems like an appropriate destination considering the article's subject and the political aspect. I would like for another wikilink to appear at or around the word "impeached" in the second sentence, which states, "After he tried to pressure Ukraine in 2019 to investigate Biden, he was impeached by the House of Representatives for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress." This would be a wikilink to First impeachment of Donald Trump. Given the context, this wikilink seems appropriate to add. I would finally like to add a third wikilink in the sentence, "The House impeached him again in January 2021 for incitement of insurrection." This wiklink would also be at or about the word "impeached" in the sentence given and would not change any words visible to the reader. It would simply add a link to the WP article for the Second impeachment of Donald Trump.

    I have previously added wikilinks for all instances listed above, but all were reverted. — Paper Luigi TC 06:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As per
    MOS:EGG. If my faulty memory serves, the last two (or less EGGy versions thereof) have previously been added and removed, possibly more than once. ―Mandruss  06:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    I think that impeachment justifies a wikilink or two (or three) in the main article lead. Trump is a unique case in that he is the only United States president to be impeached twice. Even if the first link fails

    MOS:OVERLINK, the second and third links should be added due to the context they provide to the reader. I understand that links deeper in the body of the article do point to the same targets, but having these wikilinks in the lead can provide crucial context to readers who do not wish to read the article in its entirety. — Paper Luigi TC 06:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    He was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, but not the U.S. Senate. To not highlight this misleads readers into thinking he was impeached by both.
    The majority of the body of this explanation has been proven false, for example, the Russia influence in the election was proven to be false and actually a purchased dossier by the FBI and democrats. It's disappointing that Wikipedia will allow such misinformation to persist as a scene in this biased opinion rather than a factual resource 2603:6081:61F0:1250:2CCB:3396:134:9761 (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, but not the U.S. Senate. Exactly what the article says. Otherwise, please read: Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias and come back when you have (1) a suggestion for a specific change to the article, and (2) sources to back it up. Thanks. ―Mandruss  14:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course he wasn't impeached by the Senate, the Senate doesn't impeach anyone. The Senate conducts an impeachment trial. These ARE NOT the same thing. Just as an indictment is not the same as a trial in court. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, I am open to suggestions on alternative placements for the aforementioned wikilinks that comply with

    MOS:EGG in a manner that the community sees fit. — Paper Luigi TC 06:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Trump is the only American president to have been impeached twice. After he tried to pressure Ukraine in 2019 to investigate Biden, he was impeached by the House of Representatives for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted by the Senate in February 2020. The House impeached him again in January 2021 for incitement of insurrection. The Senate acquitted him in February. Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history. Satisfies EGG and, apparently, was already proposed by Mandruss. Cessaune [talk] 16:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Proposed" by Mandruss (in the UTP discussion) merely as an illustration of the EGG concept. No particular support implied. I'm not convinced we need yet two more links to other articles in the lead. Where are lblinks when we need them?? ―Mandruss  20:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They've been shelved (for now [and possibly forever {but hopefully not}]). Impeachment, of all things, deserves a link. Come on. It isn't every day that a POTUS gets impeached. Cessaune [talk] 20:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And, I would also support a link to
    impeached twice). Cessaune [talk] 20:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Count me neutral. ―Mandruss  20:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i would support linking to the two impeachment
    Iff
    the links to the House and Senate are dropped.
    Trump is the only American president to have been impeached twice. After he tried to pressure Ukraine in 2019 to investigate Biden, he was impeached by the House of Representatives for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted by the Senate in February 2020. The House impeached him again in January 2021 for incitement of insurrection. The Senate acquitted him in February. Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history.
    thus a net zero wikilinking. ValarianB (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why drop the links? Senate (disambiguation) links to nine pages, and House of Representatives links to twenty-nine. Cessaune [talk] 14:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur — net zero wikilinking, replace existing two links. The links to Federal impeachment in the United States and the House and Senate pages are in the body and presumably on First impeachment of Donald Trump and Second impeachment of Donald Trump. Cessaune, what do you mean? The current links are House of Representatives and Senate. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that there are a lot of different Senates and even more House of Representatives across the world, and a direct link to a specific one is nice.
    Removing the links to the pages makes it harder for readers to get to those pages, considering the fact that typing in Senate or House of Representatives doesn't bring you to
    US House of Representatives (and, surprisingly, neither United States Senate nor United States House of Representatives show up as suggested articles in the search box). Without links in the lead are two options: 1) dig through Senate, Senate (disambiguation) and/or House of Representatives to get to the page, or 2) know what to search for. United States Senate is a handful to type, as is United States House of Representatives
    , and I wouldn't assume that readers would know to type US instead of United States as they might assume that that wouldn't be a valid redirect.
    I don't see a compelling reason to remove the links, and, in fact, the idea of net zero wikilinking seems kind of arbitrary. Clicking a link takes two seconds. I don't think that we should take them away from readers simply because... I don't even really know what the reasoning is. Because we want less links in the lead? Well, why? Cessaune [talk] 16:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    English language wikipedia, article is about an american president. it is a natural assumption that we're talking about our senate and house, no need for links. ValarianB (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not at all the point. Everyone knows that we're talking about the US Senate and the US House of Representatives. The point is that people may want to read those articles, and they're not especially easy to get to.
    My question is, what is the actual issue with including those links? Cessaune [talk] 20:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it goes to the reader steering issue. Each new link in the lead (where there is related body content, unlike e.g. House of Representatives) encourages readers to bypass the body, just a little more than before. Lblink would be best, no link would be second best. But still neutral. ―Mandruss  02:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I now see that those links might be referring specifically to House and Senate links. If so, my comment is out of place but still relevant to the overall discussion. ―Mandruss  02:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm gonna have to disagree with this line of reasoning. Yes, it's theoretically better for readers to read the article, but IMO it isn't better to stop readers from reading other articles to further that goal. If the point is to allow the reader to gain information, lblink > normal link > no link. Cessaune [talk] 03:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well at least we agree that lblink is first. That's something, even if irrelevant here since we don't have lblink (yet). Sorry for the digression. ―Mandruss  04:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that people may want to read those articles [...] My question is, what is the actual issue with including those links?
    MOS:OVERLINK: An article is said to be overlinked if it contains an excessive number of links, making it difficult to identify those likely to aid a reader's understanding. A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from. So please explain how reading about the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate would help a reader understand the life of Donald Trump. Far too tangential to the article subject.
    As of this writing, the lead omits those House and Senate links, so this may seem both late and pointless. I think it needed to be said for the record.
    No doubt, the principle is violated many, many times in the article. Too many editors think it's a great idea to link just about anything that can be linked. (Links are cool; look what I can do with just four characters. Hey, a reader might want to read about that, we shouldn't presume anything, and better safe than sorry. Much easier to link this than to have to actually think about the OVERLINK principle.) The article could bear some major link-trimming. But the lead is the most important in these matters, and I don't see a lot of other compelling violations in the lead. I wonder if reading about Hillary helps a reader better understand Trump's life. ―Mandruss  07:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I'm of the mindset that we should always link to people if possible, at least once. Cessaune [talk] 09:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems to have gone on a tangent about what links are and are not acceptable and whether net zero wikilinking should or shouldn't be the protocol (I am not aware of any hard limit policies or guidelines on inclusion of wiklinks in lead sections, so to me this reads like a straw man.). I'd like to bring this conversation back to focus. Being twice impeached from the highest office in the U.S. is a serious charge, one that was unheard of until several years ago. With the very small number of impeachments of presidents of the U.S., both articles for Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton (the only other two presidents impeached) have impeachment wikilinks in their lead sections. On the article for Donald Trump, impeachment is not linked in any form of the word until the body. — Paper Luigi TC 05:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems to have gone on a tangent Very common. Smaller issues often go to overarching larger issues, which are more important in the greater scheme, and the larger issues usually don't come up without being triggered by the smaller ones. ―Mandruss  05:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it's very common. I've been an editor here long enough to have seen my fair share. It's good to acknowledge the small issues with the large ones. Would you care to comment on my main point though? — Paper Luigi TC 05:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've said about all I care to about the smaller issue. I'm a larger issue kinda guy. I've stated that I'm neutral on the smaller issue. ―Mandruss  05:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So why did I revert you if I was neutral? Fair question. I wasn't that neutral then. And there was the knowledge, largely unconscious, that very little change to this article's lead, beyond minor grammatical improvements and such, is accepted without discussion—so we would have ended up here anyway and I just saved a little time. We have, after all, seen some opposition here besides mine, no? ―Mandruss  06:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm all for giving a rest to debates when the topic becomes argued
    build the web, after all. I am also unclear about what you consider to be smaller and larger issues. No one in this topic has offered an explanation for the non-inclusion of these wikilinks to my understanding. — Paper Luigi TC 06:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    No one in this topic has offered an explanation for the non-inclusion of these wikilinks to my understanding. Well I'm too lazy to review this long discussion in the hopes of refuting that claim, so I'll tell you what. I'll self-revert, we'll turn back the clock three days, and we'll see if anybody else reverts you. Couldn't be any more reasonable than that. ―Mandruss  06:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I rereverted. See my remarks above. Additionally: three links saying "impeached", each one targeting a different page, looks like an Easter basket with some
    MOS:EGGs. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    No harm in that. I think the wikilinks read better the way they are now compared to how they were recently. Even my own suggestions weren't perfect. I'm glad that the article has more precise targets for wikilinks than it once had. — Paper Luigi TC 06:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Overlinks?

    Re: [3]

    The relevant guideline is

    MOS:DUPLINK principle into play). ―Mandruss  04:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC) Redacted 05:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Here's my logic: there's no guideline or policy that states that we have to get rid of the links, so as long as I can think of a reason, any reason at all, to keep the links, then I'd keep them. I can think of a relevant reason to keep each and every one I reinstated.
    I've been thinking about linking on this page for a long time and have come up with the idea that we need a local methodology, a reference sheet or something that tells us exactly which types of things should and shouldn't be linked. Cessaune [talk] 18:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can think of a relevant reason to keep each and every one I reinstated. Ok, let's start with USFL for example. ―Mandruss  05:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    we need a local methodology... - Can't imagine how that could be codified, beyond "do not link the name of a news org linked in a supporting citation". Agree that it would help; consistency within an article is generally worth pursuing. ―Mandruss  05:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a reader of the Trump enwiki page, I don't necessarily want to read about the USFL. What's far more likely is the impulsive link hover-over, to get the little lead blurb and accompanying image (not everybody has page previews enabled, but I do and I find it very useful). In reality, I would definitely want to hover over the link to see the preview. I don't really know what the USFL is and I don't necessarily want to navigate away from the page to figure that out, so being able to read a little information about it without having to leave the page is nice. For a link such as the
    English Premier League
    . The only removal justification I can think of, the fact that more links = more visual clutter, doesn't really apply here IMO, and everything else is just an interpretation of vague MOS suggestions, suggestions that I believe are way too restrictive.
    A local methodology: for example we could say link all people, don't link news orgs, link all places. I don't know. Just something to refer to, for consistency's sake.
    Also, how is anyone gonna know that an organization is linked in a citation? That wouldn't be my first assumption, or even a guess. Cessaune [talk] 07:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Trump University - excessive detail tab

    The brief discussion was archived, the "excessive detail" tag remains in place. Recapping item 3 on Trump University:

    1. removal of longstanding content
    2. partially reinserted
    3. tagged as excessive detail
    4. shortened here

    I didn't remove the tag when I removed part of the sentence, removing it now under the assumption that it's a dead issue. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Per that discussion, I've removed the case value. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And you've restored it, so it seems the issue is not dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Third opinion on "excessive detail" tag needed

    • Longstanding content: In 2004, Trump co-founded Trump University, a company that sold real estate training courses priced from $1,500 to $35,000.[1] trimmed to say In 2004, Trump co-founded Trump University, a company that sold real estate training courses.
    • Shortened to: In 2004, Trump co-founded Trump University, a company that sold real estate seminars for up to $35,000.

    Is the tag justified? As I said in the previous discussion, such hefty fees for seminars that were adjudged to be basically worthless is a relevant detail IMO. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That tag is about wordiness, and, despite its name, not about the level of information in a given sentence. Since that sentence is about as short as it can be without removing information, the tag isn't used correctly.
    That aside, I think since the "university" was involved in a number of lawsuits and allegations of misconduct, mentioning the unusually high price tag is relevant. Also, all six sources mention the $35,000 sum, and most do so at the beginning of the article. Since RS consider it to be relevant, it should be included here, as Wikipedia is a reflection of the sources it uses. Cortador (talk) 13:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What leads you to the conclusion that the tag is not about level of information?
    Wikipedia is a reflection of the sources it uses, but not a reflection of the level of detail in news articles specific to a particular facet of the topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just read what the policy the excessive detail tag links to says.
    Yes, it is. If all sources used deem a certain detail important, that detail should be included. Cortador (talk) 10:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That belief is inconsistent with
    the relevant policy. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    How do "excessive detail" and "NPOV violation by giving undue weight to a minor aspect of a subject" even apply to four words in a two-paragraph, 141-word subsection? The material has been in the article since June 6, 2016. The six references were published between 2011 and 2016 and added to the article by different editors between February 2016 and September 2021, so it’s not as if someone sought out references to make a point. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because this is excessive detail about a minor aspect of the subject in what is meant to be a
    is the news of the day, rather than because someone sets out specifically to introduce problems, but it needs curating either way. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    That's one opinion, with two opinions saying it's not excessive. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please elaborate how "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" applies to information added eight years ago using a source which was then two years old, which addition sources covering a five-year period.
    That said, your arguments have gone from the paragraph being too wordy to being imbalanced to being news reporting. With every reply, you come up with a new reason why this information should not be included, which does not add credence to your case. Cortador (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Fire at St Johns Church

    The article states; "....where protesters had set a small fire the night before....". The Washington Post sources are behind a pay wall so I have not read them. However, the ABC source says:"...where a small fire caused damage to its basement during protests the night before...". I seem to recall news coverage/discussions at the time that the protestors were not responsible for the small basement fire. So, I think we can mention the fire but not lay blame to the protestors. What did the Fire Dept report state? Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 12:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The main article has more info on the fire in the basement nursery of the parish house. The sources say "there was a small fire", "a fire was set", etc., so I suppose we could change the wording to "where a small fire had been set during the protests the night before" but I don't really see that it makes much difference. You can find most WaPo articles on the Wayback Machine, although sometimes you have to open several of the archived versions until you find one without the paywall notice. This is the article; doesn't mention the fire except for a WH spokesman saying that "rioters attempted to burn down" the church. Your link to the ATF press release is missing a hyphen. This one works. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible bias

    The following needs references/citations, otherwise it sounds Bias: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist and many as misogynistic." RainbowBambi (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The article's lead summarizes its body content, and citations for
    verifiability are placed in the body. In the case you cited, the backup content is at Donald Trump#Racial views and Donald Trump#Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct. ―Mandruss  14:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Does consensus item 58 apply here? "Use inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements." Bob K31416 (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Strictly speaking per 58, one could add citations there, subject to normal BRD (58 therefore seems a bit pointless to me, as that would be the case without it). I'd be on the oppose side. ―Mandruss  15:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I interpret it, consensus 58 essentially says that an attempt to reach a consensus to exclude all cites in the lead failed. It doesn't mean that cites can be added without being subject to challenge; rather, merely that such challenges can't rest on the argument that we don't put cites in the lead. I could oppose without using that argument. This is all moot unless and until someone boldly adds one or more cites. ―Mandruss  16:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is clearly loaded language, it needs to be more neutral RainbowBambi (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not what you said in your opening comment. See the
    WP:NPOV policy and Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. The statement would be improper if the words "characterized as" were not present. We are not using wikivoice for that statement. See also current consensus item 30, in which a consensus was reached for exactly that language minus the misogyny part. ―Mandruss  16:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Consensus #51 covers the misogyny part. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is neutral, because the text is saying how his comments and actions have been interpreted. It neither endorses nor contradicts the interpretation. Furthermore, there is nothing controversial about those interpretations. TFD (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be quite difficult indeed to argue that the current text is not neutral. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Were any of his comments and actions anti-racist? Bob K31416 (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I just now heard him strike out against racism by calling all of his prosecutors racists. Seriously, racists make what could be called anti-racist statements. This has no meaning. In any case, we merely state what RS state, as is the way of WP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you ever heard that when Trump opened Mar-a-Lago, he welcomed Jewish members, African-Americans, and gay couples, unlike other Palm Beach clubs which prohibited them from joining? Bob K31416 (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [4] O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "When he opened Mar-a-Lago, Trump welcomed Jewish members, African-Americans, and gay couples, who had been prohibited from joining other Palm Beach clubs."Town & Country
    "Mr. Trump’s arrival was greeted with sneers by the Palm Beach elite, and he opened up Mar-a-Lago’s membership to Jews and African-Americans, who had been excluded from other members-only establishments. He was also the first club owner on the island to admit an openly gay couple." NY Times
    And as far as I know he hasn't changed this policy since it was opened many years ago. If he did, it might be awkward with regard to his orthodox jewish son-in-law and former white house adviser Jared Kushner, and to his daughter Ivanka who converted to judaism around the time when she married him. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read my entire link? This is a well-known story. In any case, if it belongs anywhere it is in the Trump racism article and should include the entire story. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean to lecture. But a white man can have a black girlfriend and still be a racist. A man can marry a woman and still be a misogynist. Indeed that's rather common. Let us not draw our own conclusions but use reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your source is disputing a Facebook post that has misinformation. It doesn't dispute the fact that Trump opened Mar-a-Lago as a private club without discrimination, which went against the norm for other clubs in the city. I think your source may have tried to imply that Trump would have discriminated if it didn't hurt his business. I see no evidence for that. Presenting your source confuses the issue because it is about some Facebook post, rather than the information in the two reliable sources I presented. I welcome your response, but that will be the end of this discussion for me. Enjoy your editing. Bob K31416 (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The source was based on other sources that we consider RS. Indeed, this is a quite old, well known episode. Mar-a-Lago was not zoned for a resort or club. It was zoned as a private residence. He used his floor of lawyers to get around the zoning violation by declaring discrimination. Believe what you wish. But claiming that this means he is not a racist is OR. We don't do that. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Parents in the infobox

    Due to Fred's role in kickstarting Donald's business career, I feel that Donald's parents, Fred Trump and Mary Anne MacLeod Trump, are important enough to warrant direct mention in the infobox via the "parents=" parameter - especially since Donald's father was judged important enough to be mentioned in the lead. Koopinator (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I assume that we don't because they are covered by Family of Donald Trump in the "relatives" parameter. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there's no need to duplicate. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They were removed in this edit. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Closing active discussions

    What kind of conduct is necessary for us to close an active discussion? Does an uninvolved editor have to do it? Is there something specific that we should link to when doing so? I'd like for there to be a specific, actionable something to refer back to. Cessaune [talk] 21:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]