Before requesting any edits to this protected article, please familiarise yourself with reliable sourcing requirements. Before posting an edit request on this talk page, please read the reliable sourcing and original research policies. These policies require that information in Wikipedia articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources, and disallow your personal views, observations, interpretations, analyses, or anecdotes from being used. Only content verified by subject experts and other reliable sources may be included, and uncited material may be removed without notice. If your complaint is about an assertion made in the article, check first to see if your proposed change is supported by reliable sources. If it is not, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted. Checking the archives for previous discussions may provide more information. Requests which do not provide citations from reliable sources, or rely on unreliable sources, may be subject to closure without any other response.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168Auto-archiving period: 14 days

view · edit Frequently asked questions This page is biased towards/against Trump because it mentions/doesn't mention X. Why won't you fix it? Having a neutral point of view does not mean giving equal weight to all viewpoints. Rather, it refers to Wikipedia's effort to discuss topics and viewpoints in a roughly equal proportion to the degree that they are discussed in reliable sources, which in political articles is mostly mainstream media, although academic works are also sometimes used. For further information, please read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: 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 Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Want to add new information about Donald Trump? Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example: Indictments against Donald Trump Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign ... or dozens of other places, as listed in ((Donald Trump series)). Thanks!

Other talk page banners

Donald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Article milestones Date Process Result June 2, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed February 12, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed September 17, 2016 Good article nominee Not listed May 25, 2017 Good article nominee Not listed December 2, 2018 Good article nominee Not listed July 15, 2019 Good article nominee Not listed August 31, 2019 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 29, 2020 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Former good article nominee This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Donald Trump Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Donald Trump on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Television / Presidential elections / Presidents / Government Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance). Conservatism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. New York City High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American / Political parties High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as High-importance). Business Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Television Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). 2010s Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 233 million views since December 2007. This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2023. This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 127 times. The weeks in which this happened: June 14 to 20, 2015 June 28 to July 4, 2015 July 19 to 25, 2015 July 26 to August 1, 2015 August 2 to 8, 2015 August 9 to 15, 2015 August 16 to 22, 2015 August 23 to 29, 2015 August 30 to September 5, 2015 September 6 to 12, 2015 September 13 to 19, 2015 September 20 to 26, 2015 September 27 to October 3, 2015 December 6 to 12, 2015 December 13 to 19, 2015 January 3 to 9, 2016 January 10 to 16, 2016 January 17 to 23, 2016 January 24 to 30, 2016 January 31 to February 6, 2016 February 7 to 13, 2016 February 14 to 20, 2016 February 21 to 27, 2016 February 28 to March 5, 2016 March 6 to 12, 2016 March 13 to 19, 2016 March 20 to 26, 2016 March 27 to April 2, 2016 April 3 to 9, 2016 April 10 to 16, 2016 April 17 to 23, 2016 April 24 to 30, 2016 May 1 to 7, 2016 May 8 to 14, 2016 May 15 to 21, 2016 May 22 to 28, 2016 May 29 to June 4, 2016 June 5 to 11, 2016 June 12 to 18, 2016 July 3 to 9, 2016 July 10 to 16, 2016 July 17 to 23, 2016 July 24 to 30, 2016 July 31 to August 6, 2016 August 21 to 27, 2016 August 28 to September 3, 2016 September 4 to 10, 2016 September 11 to 17, 2016 September 18 to 24, 2016 September 25 to October 1, 2016 October 2 to 8, 2016 October 9 to 15, 2016 October 16 to 22, 2016 October 23 to 29, 2016 October 30 to November 5, 2016 November 6 to 12, 2016 November 13 to 19, 2016 November 20 to 26, 2016 November 27 to December 3, 2016 December 4 to 10, 2016 December 11 to 17, 2016 December 18 to 24, 2016 January 1 to 7, 2017 January 8 to 14, 2017 January 15 to 21, 2017 January 22 to 28, 2017 January 29 to February 4, 2017 February 5 to 11, 2017 February 12 to 18, 2017 February 19 to 25, 2017 February 26 to March 4, 2017 March 5 to 11, 2017 March 12 to 18, 2017 March 19 to 25, 2017 March 26 to April 1, 2017 April 2 to 8, 2017 April 23 to 29, 2017 May 14 to 20, 2017 May 21 to 27, 2017 May 28 to June 3, 2017 June 11 to 17, 2017 June 25 to July 1, 2017 October 8 to 14, 2017 October 22 to 28, 2017 November 26 to December 2, 2017 January 14 to 20, 2018 June 10 to 16, 2018 September 30 to October 6, 2018 October 28 to November 3, 2018 November 4 to 10, 2018 November 11 to 17, 2018 November 18 to 24, 2018 November 25 to December 1, 2018 December 9 to 15, 2018 September 22 to 28, 2019 December 15 to 21, 2019 January 5 to 11, 2020 February 23 to 29, 2020 March 1 to 7, 2020 April 12 to 18, 2020 May 31 to June 6, 2020 June 7 to 13, 2020 June 14 to 20, 2020 June 21 to 27, 2020 June 28 to July 4, 2020 August 9 to 15, 2020 August 16 to 22, 2020 August 23 to 29, 2020 September 27 to October 3, 2020 October 4 to 10, 2020 October 11 to 17, 2020 October 18 to 24, 2020 October 25 to 31, 2020 November 1 to 7, 2020 November 8 to 14, 2020 November 15 to 21, 2020 November 22 to 28, 2020 November 29 to December 5, 2020 December 6 to 12, 2020 December 13 to 19, 2020 January 3 to 9, 2021 January 10 to 16, 2021 January 17 to 23, 2021 January 24 to 30, 2021 January 31 to February 6, 2021 July 10 to 16, 2022 June 11 to 17, 2023 Health of Donald Trump was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 June 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Donald Trump. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Cuozzo, Steve (November 16, 2013). "Don't Trust Anything on Wikipedia". New York Post. Popper, Ben (July 22, 2015). "Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Wikipedia page". The Verge. Merrill, Jeremy (February 1, 2016). "On Wikipedia, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate". New York Times. Germ, Erik (May 28, 2016). "5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day". Cracked.com. Guo, Jeff (October 25, 2016). "Wikipedia is fixing one of the Internet's biggest flaws". The Washington Post. Alcantara, Chris (October 27, 2016). "The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates' Wikipedia pages". The Washington Post. Staff Writer (December 21, 2016). "Most-edited Wikipedia pages of 2016 revealed". BBC News. Gartenberg, Chaim (January 20, 2017). "Wikipedia editors can't decide if Trump is the president yet". The Verge. Wyrich, Andrew (June 5, 2017). "Someone is trying to get Trump's official portrait deleted from Wikipedia". The Daily Dot. Warren, Tom (22 November 2018). "Siri thinks Donald Trump is a penis". The Verge. Blumenthal, Eli (22 November 2018). "Wikipedia vandalizing causes Siri to show a lewd image when asked about Donald Trump". USA Today. Griffin, Andrew (23 November 2018). "Asking Siri for information about Donald Trump shows explicit image after Wikipedia edit". The Independent. Gander, Kashmira (23 November 2018). "Someone hacked Donald Trump's Wikipedia page, replaced photo with image of penis". Newsweek. Martin, Alan (26 November 2018). "The Trump penis Wikipedia war has kicked off again". The Inquirer. Brandom, Russell (December 3, 2018). "Wikipedia engages the 'nuclear option' after Trump penis hack". The Verge. Mak, Aaron (May 28, 2019). "Donald Trump's Wikipedia Entry Is a War Zone". Slate. Alex Pasternack (7 March 2020). "How Wikipedia's volunteers became the web's best weapon against misinformation". Fast Company. Retrieved 9 March 2020. Brian Flood (21 May 2020). "Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics". Fox News. Retrieved 22 May 2020. Dan Evon (11 November 2020). "Does Loser.com Redirect to Trump's Wikipedia Page?". Snopes. Retrieved 19 November 2020. Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Section sizes Section size for Donald Trump (95 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 11,389 11,389 Personal life 20 22,363 Early life 5,420 5,420 Family 2,216 2,216 Religion 2,910 2,910 Health habits 1,929 1,929 Wealth 9,868 9,868 Business career 120 36,002 Real estate 1,789 13,379 Manhattan developments 5,334 5,334 Atlantic City casinos 4,137 4,137 Clubs 2,119 2,119 Licensing of the Trump brand 1,707 1,707 Side ventures 7,104 10,370 Trump University 3,266 3,266 Foundation 5,663 5,663 Legal affairs and bankruptcies 4,763 4,763 Media career 58 6,708 Books 1,098 1,098 Film and television 5,552 5,552 Political career 2,276 29,283 Presidential campaigns (2000–2016) 3,385 27,007 2016 presidential campaign 8,207 23,622 Campaign rhetoric and political positions 6,587 6,587 Financial disclosures 3,458 3,458 Election to the presidency 5,370 5,370 Presidency (2017–2021) 125 215,073 Early actions 2,216 2,216 Conflicts of interest 2,892 2,892 Domestic policy 24 21,482 Economy 3,967 3,967 Climate change, environment, and energy 4,015 4,015 Deregulation 3,695 3,695 Health care 4,209 4,209 Social issues 5,572 5,572 Pardons and commutations 2,611 2,611 Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op 3,132 3,132 Immigration 5,890 24,662 Travel ban 5,284 5,284 Family separation at border 6,868 6,868 Trump wall and government shutdown 6,620 6,620 Foreign policy 3,271 38,039 Trade 2,569 2,569 Russia 4,854 4,854 China 5,150 5,150 North Korea 5,677 5,677 Afghanistan 3,096 3,096 Israel 2,664 2,664 Saudi Arabia 2,221 2,221 Syria 3,944 3,944 Iran 4,593 4,593 Personnel 8,882 8,882 Judiciary 5,242 5,242 COVID-19 pandemic 309 33,904 Initial response 8,232 8,232 White House Coronavirus Task Force 6,059 6,059 World Health Organization 2,686 2,686 Pressure to abandon pandemic mitigation measures 8,228 8,228 Political pressure on health agencies 2,681 2,681 Outbreak at the White House 3,364 3,364 Effects on the 2020 presidential campaign 2,345 2,345 Investigations 4,233 33,490 Hush money payments 5,304 5,304 Russian election interference 8,411 8,411 FBI Crossfire Hurricane and 2017 counterintelligence investigations 2,450 2,450 Mueller investigation 13,092 13,092 First impeachment 6,790 10,513 Impeachment trial in the Senate 3,723 3,723 2020 presidential campaign 4,943 4,943 2020 presidential election 3,545 22,940 False claims of voting fraud, attempt to prevent presidential transition 9,358 9,358 Concern about a possible coup attempt or military action 2,614 2,614 January 6 Capitol attack 4,028 4,028 Second impeachment 3,395 3,395 Post-presidency (2021–present) 8,414 36,835 Investigations, criminal charges, civil lawsuits 3,401 22,271 FBI investigations 5,955 5,955 Criminal referral by the House January 6 Committee 683 683 Federal and state criminal cases 6,997 6,997 Civil lawsuits against Trump 5,235 5,235 2024 presidential campaign 6,150 6,150 Public image 58 53,303 Scholarly assessment and public approval surveys 6,264 6,264 False or misleading statements 9,187 9,187 Promotion of conspiracy theories 4,208 4,208 Incitement of violence 3,081 3,081 Social media 5,452 5,452 Relationship with the press 5,992 5,992 Racial views 13,910 13,910 Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct 4,475 4,475 Popular culture 676 676 Notes 138 138 References 33 1,192 Works cited 1,159 1,159 External links 4,825 4,825 Total 417,111 417,111

@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: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)[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]

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) 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)[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]

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.

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]

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 ^{T • C} 06:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per discussion at my UTP, I oppose the first link per MOS:OVERLINK bullet 1, and the second and third links 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 ^{T • C} 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 ^{T • C} 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 impeachment (Trump is the only American president to have been 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 Senate or 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 ^{T • C} 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 ^{T • C} 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 ad nauseam, given all that has been said and done over the past days, your acceptance of these three additional wikilinks to the lead is still questionable. I'll consider that your opinion may have swayed since your original revert, but I'm not sure in which direction. I'll say that I'm not holding out on your opinion alone from adding them back myself, but I would like to get a community consensus beforehand. Your assertion that, "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", falls apart as an argument in regards to lead section guidelines on linking. Links are how we 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 ^{T • C} 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 ^{T • C} 06:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [3]

The relevant guideline is MOS:OVERLINK (not that a guideline is required for something like this; we are allowed to use reasoning independent from "rules").

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.

At MOS:BUILD:

Ask yourself, "How likely is it that the reader will also want to read that other article?"

For one example:

In September 1983, Trump purchased the New Jersey Generals, a team in the United States Football League.

The first link is relevant to Trump's biography; he purchased the Generals. The second link, however, is not; that the Generals were in the USFL is a mere aside too tangential to the article subject to link. On the outside chance a reader wants to read about the USFL, it's linked in the first sentence at New Jersey Generals.

As for the news orgs links, again, it's unlikely a reader will want to read about one; they are here to read about Trump, not The Washington Post. If they do, it's linked in the citation. citation (this also brings the 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 NFL, an organization that I am familiar with, my general assumption, and this goes for all organizations/businesses, is that not everyone is familiar with it, in the same way that it's reasonable to assume that not everyone is familiar with 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]

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 high-level overview article. A lot of material ends up in this article because it 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]

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]

• This ATF report is interesting Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 12:59, 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]

Are you all sure you want to run the Talk page this way? I think it gives a bad impression of suppressing dissent. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was mostly carried by editors other than the IP. I think you made some good points as did others. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our consensus list has no shortage of Trump-favorable consensuses that belie a claim of widespread anti-Trump bias at this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Cessaune [talk] 14:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The OP and the title of this section both violate policies. And the eitor is now arguing at the Flat Earth article [4] 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. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Cessaune [talk] 14:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't close the section. After it was closed and incorrectly continued, I moved the additional text into the close window. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a distinction without a difference. And Muboshgu's rationale was valid, regardless of the outcome. Cessaune [talk] 14:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is not supposed to continue after a close, so I moved the continuation into the close window. My edit summary stated: 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? O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Cessaune [talk] 15:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We already have the 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—this kind of blue-sky, forum-like discussion is often hard to resist—and I doubt they would object to re-re-closure now. They are free to correct me. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Cessaune [talk] 14:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I, Mandruss, an uninvolved editor, hereby endorse Objective3000's re-close. Happy now? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, no, per my original comment above. Cessaune [talk] 15:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Bob K31416 (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you can't come up with an argument that fits Wikipedia policies and guidelines, just insult everybody. DJT is not 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. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. ValarianB (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

[5] 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]

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]