Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 93

Archive 90

Archive 91

Archive 92

Archive 93

Archive 94

Archive 95

→

Archive 100

New paragraph added to lede - I removed it

Today Soibangla added the following paragraph to the lede section of the article:

Trump has been known throughout his adult life to promote himself with hyperbole and falsehoods. Within six months of announcing his presidential candidacy, FactCheck.org declared him the "King of Whoppers," stating, "In the 12 years of FactCheck.org's existence, we've never seen his match." By the 20th month of his presidency, Washington Post fact checkers counted 5,000 instances of his false or misleading statements — including 125 during a single two-hour period.

Sources

Knowing that the lede in this article has been discussed literally word by word, including how many paragraphs it can have, I felt this addition without discussion was highly inappropriate. I am bringing it here to see if there is consensus to restore it - either to the lede or to the text. --MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how any experienced editor could think this is a reasonable addition to the lead (or neutral enough for inclusion in a section about Trump's use of hyperbole). power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Taken to WP:AE PackMecEng (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Based on this addition and their edits at George Soros, I've requested a TBAN of Soibangla at WP:AE. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC) And here is my partial response: "I have contributed an enormous amount of high-quality edits to WP and I find the call for me to be topic banned from American Politics to be outrageously egregious." Cheers soibangla (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC) power~enwiki, I agree with Soibangla. This is an extreme reaction, and very abrupt, without any lengthy discussion here to work things out. Immediately grabbing the ban hammer is pretty drastic. Please withdraw that filing and discuss here instead. Treating a faithful contributor of much good material this way is really beyond the pale. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

It astonishes me that the last two paragraphs of the lede have apparently withstood extensive scrutiny and have remained here, even though they are clearly more appropriate for the presidency article rather than the BLP, whereas a paragraph that describes a core and defining aspect of the man's character, which is a well-documented and consistent thread through his entire adult life, is challenged here. This removed paragraph, or some variation thereof, should remain and one or both of the subsequent paragraphs should come out. soibangla (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Good point about those last two paragraphs. They are "highly inappropriate" for this article. Your addition is more appropriate, but it's probably a good idea to discuss it first before adding it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer and Soibangla: About those last two paragraphs: certainly not. it is standard practice here for the lede of an article about a president to contain an extensive summary of their actions as president. And little or nothing about their personal character traits. See Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

ec... See my new section below, and let's discuss there. This article deals with the man, Donald Trump, and the other deals with President Donald Trump. Sure, his presidency gets mentioned here, but that's all. As far as "other thing" goes, we know about that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree that half of the lead is too great a proportion to devote to his election and 21 months in office. As for "standard practice", I refer to WP:OSE. Obama was not Trump, nor was Bush43. Only Clinton comes close, only because he was ultimately impeached, and stay tuned on that.
Soibangla's argument makes as much sense to me as about 80% of the reasoning I've seen on this page, much of it winning consensus. S/he was overbold, which was easily corrected by MelanieN's challenge. No harm no foul. I agree that Power~enwiki should withdraw the AE complaint, but I'll refrain from saying so there unless it looks like it might gain some traction. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Personal bickering is off-topic here: take it to your personal talk pages. — JFG talk 19:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As I said there, while this edit on its own wouldn't justify any sanctions (Soibangla is free to propose bold changes, even when there is likely to be a consensus against it), I feel their overall behavior does. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC) I think you should reserve such drastic measures for genuinely tendentious editors. Occasional mistakes are par for the course for any editor, even the best. We deal with them on the talk pages. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC) The issue is long term behavior, not this edit specifically. PackMecEng (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC) I encourage you to cite specific instances of this alleged “long term behavior,” when in reality my edits have not encountered any unusual degree of challenges, rather than refer to “vague concerns” as my accuser has alleged without substantiation. If you cannot, I encourage you to retract your assertion that is not made in good faith and thus constitutes a personal attack. soibangla (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC) No. PackMecEng (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC) Translation: I. Got. Nuthin’. Just like the other editor didn’t. Cheers. soibangla (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC) The AE thread is closed; if there are not new problematic diffs in the future I will consider the matter closed if you do as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC) I will consider the matter closed when you acknowledge and apologize here that you made a specious and scurrilous accusation against me. soibangla (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I can understand why some editors aren't happy with the paragraph in question, but it is an accurate, well-sourced description of Trump's defining personality trait. Such an addition should've been introduced on the talk page first, but the content should certainly not be dismissed out of hand. The knee-jerk response of an Enforcement Request was far more troubling, to be honest. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I now acknowledge that I should have broached my "bold" edit here before making it; I did not fully consider the highly contentious nature of the topic. My bad. But, as some have noted, the edit itself has merit. Can we now discuss how we can incorporate into the lede what is likely Trump's defining characteristic? soibangla (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

We currently have many of his public statements were controversial or false in the context of the 2016 campaign in the lead. I think it is reasonable to expand that to encompass his entire life/personality. This seems particularly unobjectionable if the word "hyperbole" is used, as he himself has used that word on multiple occasions. Details like "125 (misleading statements) during a single two-hour period" should definitely be left to the article body. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

What word he uses is completely irrelevant for our purposes, and the word "hyperbole" hardly reflects the whole of RS on this subject. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

That wasn't what I intended to imply. The initial proposal said Trump has been known throughout his adult life to promote himself with hyperbole and falsehoods; I see no reason anyone could object to replacing/expanding many of his public statements were controversial or false language with that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I would object because his falsehoods extend far beyond self-promotion. Per RS, which I feel compelled to emphasize because people keep losing sight of that on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The lifelong ‘promote himself with hyperbole’ (even ‘and exaggeration’) fits, but ‘falsehoods’ is not part of that, it ties to a post-election meme. Dismediation note — not a lot of credibility for post-nomination sources. Could see it as two lines — hyperbole as life long, and false as since nomination. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the "hyperbole" word is coming from. The only use of the term for Trump I know of is from The Art of the Deal, by his ghostwriter Tony Schwartz. (Trump has likely never written a single book.) It's a term to describe his falsehoods:

• "When Schwartz began writing “The Art of the Deal,” he realized that he needed to put an acceptable face on Trump’s loose relationship with the truth. So he concocted an artful euphemism. Writing in Trump’s voice, he explained to the reader, “I play to people’s fantasies. . . . People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole. It’s an innocent form of exaggeration—and it’s a very effective form of promotion.” Schwartz now disavows the passage. “Deceit,” he told me, is never “innocent.” He added, “ ‘Truthful hyperbole’ is a contradiction in terms. It’s a way of saying, ‘It’s a lie, but who cares?’ ” Trump, he said, loved the phrase."[1]

Does Trump use hyperbole? Yes, but even more so he's just plain deceptive, and even his hyperbole is used to deceive. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

BTW, there is no justification for making any artificial distinction between "before and after". He's the same person, but now has a bigger bully pulpit. One documented difference is that his false statements are coming at a much faster rate now. Rather than becoming more "presidential", the position has emboldened him. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Solbangle's addition was a bit excessive in my view, but I do think the article under-emphasizes Trump's false statements and treatment of facts, given the drumbeat of coverage it's received in the reliable media. I daresay it's become his defining trait of his political persona, beyond the race- and immigration-related stuff. Also please see the discussion I started below--I do think we could use a spinoff that covers this aspect in greater detail that would be appropriate in this article. R2 (bleep) 05:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Film and television note

From the Media career #Film and television ##TV commentary section.

In 2011, Trump was given a weekly unpaid guest commentator spot on Fox & Friends that continued for years.

reflist

References

My questions are how many appearances did he do? How long is "years"? He must have stopped before becoming president, but when?

On further reading I found that Public profile #Popular culture contains mentions of other similar activity.

Starting in the 1990s, Trump was a guest about 24 times on the nationally syndicated Howard Stern Show on talk radio. Trump also had his own daily talk radio program called Trumped!, from 2004 to 2008.

reflist

References

I think the question here should be, how is this in popular culture and not in media career? — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Should be moved to media career indeed. — JFG ^talk 21:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Not entirely. Unpaid guest spots are not part of media career, his own paying talk show is. Guest spots ad hoc would seem popular culture as in related to being famous. The same as when Doonesbury cartoons lampooned him back when, or if he'd been on Dancing with the Stars or portrayed in a play or something. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I had completely missed his "daily talk show" - most people would probably call it a spot. The sources don't say whether he got paid for it or not. According to the NY Times, it was a 90-second segment where Trump got to sound off on things like the idiotic names with which celebrities saddle their children or the repellent snobbery of the "Jag-u-ar" ad, all without leaving his desk and which he also used to promote his other business endeavors. Probably much less entertaining than the white-winged warrior (ba-awk bawk-bawk-bawk) striking terror into the hearts of criminals everywhere. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• I put it all in Media career #Radio and television commentary. I didn't change the wording, if someone wants to clarify the timeline of Trump's Fox & Friends tenure that would be an improvement in my opinion. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
• I clarified with a source that it stopped when he started his Presidential run. Apparently he appeared "almost weekly". Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Charitable work with The Rainbow/Push Coalition on Wall Street

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

---

In 1999 Jesse Jackson gave thanks to Donald Trump for helping establish the Rainbow Push Coalition at 40 Wall Street in New York. Trump gave them a building to use in order to help black Americans have a presence on Wall St. In a speech on C-SPAN Jackson introduced Donald Trump by explaining his involvement, "when we opened this Wall Street Project and we talked about it, he gave us space at 40 Wall St. Which was to make a statement about us having a presence there. And beyond that, in terms of reaching out and being inclusive he has done that too....Last year he was a part of our workshop, of our panel workshop" Disciple4lif (talk) 11:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Truly awful source. O3000 (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I have now removed the parameter causing the video to skip the first 349 seconds. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why you call this an "awful source". This was a serious statement by a reputable person, Jessie Jackson, made in front of the C-SPAN cameras at a public event, and it was covered by the contemporary press. It checks all the boxes for appropriate encyclopedic sourcing. Jackson praised Trump for supporting his anti-discrimination initiative, and having taken an interest in his presidential candidacies of 1984 and 1988 while others were avoiding him. After Jackson's introduction, Trump went on to praise black construction workers that he employed. Oh jeez that goes against the "racist asshole" narrative, must be bad sourcing. The real question should be "how do we include this fact properly?" This was discussed at Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump/Archive 5#Trump donated Wall Street office space to Jesse Jackson's PUSH Coalition, with many editors supporting inclusion, but some others pushing hard against it, so that it was left out of the article after exhaustion of the debaters. Probably time for an RfC. — JFG ^talk 08:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Not worthy of inclusion per WP:WEIGHT, obviously. Besides, I'm sure this was just a tax write off. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

We assign lots of weight to one-off incidents that paint Trump in a bad light, such as the "bad earpiece" anecdote about disavowing David Duke, but we dismiss any event that shows him positively, such as this one, or the more recent pardons of two unjustly condemned black people. I just wish the choice of elements to include in this biography could be a little more neutral. — JFG ^talk 00:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why you call this an "awful source". Did you see the video before Mandruss fixed it? Did you see the end of the video? The source doesn't belong anywhere near an encyclopedia. If there are incidents that should be removed, argue to remove them. That's not an excuse to add self-serving, incidents without context. O3000 (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I did not see the video before whatever Mandruss fixed. If there was a technical issue, that should not prevent us from referencing a C-SPAN segment documenting what happened between Trump and Jackson. Regarding the selection of an event or another, I am genuinely concerned that anything that can be construed as positive towards the article subject is usually rejected as undue, whereas most of the negative things are accepted, no matter how insignificant. But you're right, we must discuss each phrase separately. — JFG ^talk 02:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: The video looked like this (started at +5:49), so I did this. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. So this was a compilation video trying to make a political point. What is of interest here is the C-SPAN segment showing Jackson and Trump speak. The rest can be disregarded. If we can find a source with C-SPAN only, that would be better. If we can find a printed source citing the C-SPAN segment, that would be even better. — JFG ^talk 21:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

For what its worth, other links at youtube, Daily Wire, NY Times, NY Post, Breitbart, photo at imgur, etcetera.

But I think 'exclude' because I do not believe it has gotten enough press to have WP:WEIGHT ... At most it might get a single line. I realize that the 1973 discrimination suit gets a paragraph, but that has a lot more media coverage. The again, everything goes around -- I have seen Reid denouncing Mexican border crossing (in 1993) and believe Obama wanted a wall. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Bumping thread until we get some consensus. Should we mention Trump's contribution to Jessie Jackson's charity in 1999? — JFG ^talk 10:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• No, per WP:WEIGHT, as previously stated above. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• No No way no how in this article; no indication of any WP:WEIGHT. A quick google finds this too. Apparently Jessie Jackson isn't too happy about the Central Park 5 thing and Charlottesville. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• No We've had this discussion before. Not DUE. O3000 (talk) 11:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Why not? Jack Bee Nimble (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC) Jack Bee Nimble Jack Bee Nimble (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Of course. If you want a link to a video with just the C-span this is not hard to find. Matter of fact I can make one by editing this video. The bias on this website is terrible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disciple4lif (talk • contribs) 07:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• No per WEIGHT. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• No - Fails WP:DUEWEIGHT.- MrX 🖋 11:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• No - per WEIGHT. Theres just a lot more repeats about 1973 than of this. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2018

Can I write or add some facts about our president while he is still hear ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.254.179.114 (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

What exactly do you want? ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 14:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2018

Please change "In January 2018, Trump was examined by White House physician Ronny Jackson, who stated that he was in excellent health and that his cardiac assessment revealed no medical issues,[80] although his weight and cholesterol level were higher than recommended," to "In January 2018, Trump was examined by White House physician Ronny Jackson, who stated that he was in excellent health and that his cardiac assessment revealed no medical issues,[80] although his weight and cholesterol level were higher than recommended." There should be a period at the end of this sentence, not a comma. Aarontaksingmak (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done[2] PackMecEng (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2018

Please change "Several outside cardiologists commented that Trump's weight, lifestyle and LDL cholesterol level ought to have raised serious concerns about his cardiac health." to " Several outside cardiologists commented that Trump's weight, lifestyle, and LDL cholesterol level ought to have raised serious concerns about his cardiac health." There should be an Oxford comma after "lifestyle" for consistency, as this article has been using Oxford commas throughout. Aarontaksingmak (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done[3] PackMecEng (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2018

There is an unnecessary space between the last word in this sentence and the period. --> "In 1976, Fred Trump set up trust funds of $1 million ($4.3 million in 2017 dollars) for each of his five children and three grandchildren ." Aarontaksingmak (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done[4] PackMecEng (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2018

There should be double quotation marks, instead of single ones, in this sentence. --> Shortly after taking office, Trump put Iran 'on notice' following their ballistic missile tests on January 29, 2017. Aarontaksingmak (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done: [5]. It was a quote from a quote from a Trump administration press release that was used by several newspapers. I wouldn't even know how to properly quote that; doesn't seem to fall under [6]. I removed the quote when I shortened the section to the facts (missile tests followed by sanctions). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC) I copied my previous edit and forgot to remove the time stamp; actual UTC was 09:11. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2018

"Viktor Yanukovych" is misspelled in this sentence --> "Trump's connections to Russia have been widely reported by the press.[699][700] One of Trump's campaign managers, Paul Manafort, had worked for several years to help pro-Russian politician Viktor Yanukovich win the Ukrainian presidency." (It should be a "y" instead of an "i") Aarontaksingmak (talk) 05:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done: [7]. Thanks for pointing out the error. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Sentence makes him sound like a quintuplet

in Early life and education - Donald John Trump was born on June 14, 1946, at the Jamaica Hospital, Queens, New York City,[3][4] one of five children. Can we get it changed around, or get "one of five children" deleted, so it doesn't sound like he is a quintuplet? I am not able to edit the page currently, since I am not extended confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Led8000 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done: [8]. It does make him sound like one of quintuplets . Since the only source for the sentence is his birth certificate which does not mention his siblings, I have removed the reference to them. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC) I copied my previous edit and forgot to remove the time stamp; actual UTC was 09:25. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

FTR, the siblings are covered in more detail at Donald Trump#Wives, siblings, and descendants, so noteworthy bio information is not lost. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2018

"Ronald Schnackenberg" is misspelled the Trump University section: "Ronald Schneckenberg, a sales manager for Trump University, said in a testimony that he was reprimanded for not trying harder to sell a $35,000 real estate class to a couple who could not afford it. Schneckenberg said that he believed..." Aarontaksingmak (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

•  Done Many articles spell it each way. But, his LinkedIn account spells it with an "a". Thanks. O3000 (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2018

Please italicize The New York Times in this sentence: Before the 2016 election, The New York Times speculated that Trump "accelerated his ferocious efforts to gain stature within the political world" after Obama lampooned him at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner in April 2011.[366] Aarontaksingmak (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done--B dash (talk) 06:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Infobox place of birth

I propose that the the |birth_place= parameter in the infobox be changed from the current "New York City" to "Queens, New York City" (acknowledging that this has been discussed before). New York City is a big place and Queens is very different from e.g. Staten Island or The Bronx. When the average person (including most New Yorkers) hear New York City, they think of Manhattan. Moreover, including Queens would not be overly specific, as it is in fact an official administrative territorial unit of both New York City and New York State (i.e. it's not like a neighborhood), since it holds the status of both borough and county. Just as the rule of thumb on Wikipedia is to include the smallest official territorial unit in the infobox, so too should that apply here. Ergo Sum 23:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Just noting FTR that this is in the #Current consensus list as item 2. As least three editors will support revisiting the issue. More than three, if you count those who wanted birthplace to include state and/or country. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Are we sure he wasn't born on some other planet entirely? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I would support "Queens, New York City". More precise without getting lengthy or redundant. — JFG ^talk 23:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Markbassett and Objective3000: Since you commented on the Queens being in the place of birth field, would you care to weigh in here? Ergo Sum 01:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I live in Manhattan, indeed in the same area as Trump. We vote at the same poll. Yes, we on this island tend to think of Manhattan as NYC -- which is a flaw rather embarrassing to admit. But then, it has long been said that DJT has disliked that he lived in Queens. Queens is a very large borough. The area in which DJT was born was considered a white enclave at that time. Which is to say, if we use Queens, we are suggesting an overall diversity, in the minds of many, that didn't exist. In fact, Manhattan is probably just as diverse. Frankly, it’s all rather silly. There are counties, congressional districts, and boroughs, and they don’t match. (Los Angeles county is much larger and much more confusing.) Because of its density, Manhattan has multiple congressional districts. Because of gerrymandering, congressional districts cross borough borders. I don't have a strong opinion on this. As a general rule, I'm not keen on narrowing this too much in order to avoid making any suggestion of upbringing. I'd probably prefer NYC -- but would listen to arguments. O3000 (talk) 02:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Queens, New York, U.S. - before, the defacto norm seemed to be to present it that way, from examples of Christina Aguilera, Staten Island, New York or Woody Allen, The Bronx, New York; or Joseph Barbera, Manhattan. It also seems to be a common phrasing on the outside web for his birthplace. Since then, it looks like someone took the discussion as a mandate to change a lot of List of people from New York City, although in early cases like George Abernethy it seems a bit off to say he was born somewhere that was not incorporated until after he was dead. ANyway, New York City is a special case -- I'll stick with saying "Queens, New York". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

We surely have to look at Barack Obama. His Infobox declares he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.. So we narrow his birthplace down to a city of only 340,000 people. Queens says it has 2.3 million people. So it would make sense to narrow Trump's birthplace down to at least that level of detail. But then there's that U.S. bit on the end of Obama's entry. Unless we are going to treat them differently regarding country of birth (Now, why would we do that?), we should also logically mention the country for Trump. HiLo48 (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

(Now, why would we do that?) In this case (see the 2016 discussion) it was decided that the country (and the state) would be superfluous for what is likely the most famous city in the world. The extremely rare reader who doesn't know where New York City is is free to click the link and they will be enlightened at the very beginning of the target article (that's why we have links). This calculation does not apply to Honolulu—it's far less well-known—so it's not at all surprising to see a different treatment there (or for any city besides NYC). This is the point that WP:OSE tries to make. To point to other treatments of NYC would stifle evolutionary improvement of the encyclopedia: "Better is more important than consistent". ―Mandruss ☎ 08:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

What Mandruss said. U.S. is superfluous here, and I dare say in any other infobox of New Yorkers. — JFG ^talk 09:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Excluding it, while including it for Obama, runs the risk of being seeing as responding to (Trump's very own dishonest) allegations that Obama wasn't born in the US. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I once suggested that infoboxes should use the target article's title as default, since the considerations are very similar. I still think it would be a good idea, and not solely because of the amount of time saved debating things. I note that such a convention would omit state and country for occurrences of Honolulu. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

That seems sensible. I would also suggest that Honolulu is rather well known globally, better known than the birthplaces of many Presidents. It also means only one thing, unlike New York, which has many different legal, geopolitical and popular meanings. Remember, we are a global encyclopaedia. (I love spelling it that way to make this point.) People all over the world will read this article. I see place of birth as needing as much clarification as possible. HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support Queens. The analogy to Los Angeles is not appropriate because the city of Los Angeles is entirely within the larger Los Angeles County, by far the most populous county in the United States. New York City is unique in that it consists of five boroughs and five counties, separated by seawater in many cases, and it previously consisted of several different cities which were later consolidated. I believe that the Queens identifier adds significant value to the reader. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support the infobox should contain either Queens, New York or Queens, New York City as place of birth. Gratdaal (talk) 08:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect information

The early life section states "Trump grew up in Jamaica, Queens". This is incorrect. Trump grew up in a different nearby neighborhood called Jamaica Estates. Can a user who is able to edit this page please correct this? It is pretty awful to have a blatant error like this on Wikipedia, especially for a prominent person like Trump. If a reliable source is needed for this info here is one:[9] Gratdaal (talk) 08:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done IIRC it used to say Jamaica Estates and someone changed it to remove estates. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It said Jamaica Estates until December 2017, when the "Estates" disappeared, appparently in error, as a result of two successive edits.[10][11] (The WaPo source involved there provided the street address but doesn't contain the word "Jamaica".) Of the two cited sources currently in the article, the first is a book that I can't check without a trip to the library and the second supports Jamaica Estates. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, you can read the referenced pages online, just click on the page number in the reference. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Wareham Place (first Trump home) and Midland Parkway (where the family moved after the 5th child was born) are in Jamaica Estates, according to page 32 of Kranish & Fisher. The references to pg. 31 and 37 probably apply to the "frequent trips into Manhattan." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Seeking consensus: North Korea and Trump

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

---

Should the following sentence be included in the body of the article and the lead?

"He became the first sitting president to meet with a sitting leader of North Korea".

• YES because such an event was very notable in diplomacy history of the United States. Thinker78 (talk) 06:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Not in the lead — we have just had a discussion about including North Korea in the lead and this has been done. I think this could be included in the body if it can be fitted in.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Not in the lead - I have exactly the same view as Jack Upland. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Not in the lead I do not mean to sound like a parrot here but they are both correct. There has been a lot of previous discussion about Korea in the lead and I think it is in a decent place at the moment. It is an interesting and notable fact, I would have to see where it could fit in the body assuming there is room for it. PackMecEng (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I looked in the current consensus list and didn't find North Korea but I found a previous discussion in late July. --Thinker78 (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC) Edited 23:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• In body for now - later, after a trade pact, peace treaty, or North Korea gives up its nuclear weapons happens then it would deserve more space and a lead position. Right now it is notable but not enough in here to suit lead. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Wait until something more substantial is announced for a lede mention. Definitely keep up with ongoing developments in article body. — JFG ^talk 09:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Sources

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

RfC: Birtherism in the lede

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

---

Should the following text be added to the lede:

• Trump first stirred controversy in Republican politics over his promotion of birther conspiracy theories, alleging that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The following sources can be used (all peer-reviewed academic sources):

• Alan Abramowitz. 2018. The Great Alignment: Race, Party Transformation, and the Rise of Donald Trump. Yale University Press. Quote: "“He made his first big splash in Republican politics in 2011 as the most prominent promoter of the conspiracy theory known as birtherism—the patently false claim that Barack Obama, the nation’s first African-American president, was born not in Hawaii but in Africa and was therefore ineligible to serve as president."
• Michael Tesler. 2018. Islamophobia in the 2016 Election. The Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics. Quote: "Donald Trump had rallied these Americans in the past by questioning President Obama's citizenship. Beliefs about Obama's birthplace and religion were both strong correlates of Republicans’ support for Trump in April 2011 when he was the face of the “birther movement”"
• Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson. 2011. The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism. Oxford University Press. Quote: "Stoked by demagogues like Donald Trump, the claim about President Obama’s otherness and illegitimacy reached its apogee in “Birther- ist” claims that Obama was not really born in the United States."
• Julia Azari and Marc J. Hetherington. 2016. Back to the Future? What the Politics of the Late Nineteenth Century Can Tell Us about the 2016 Election. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Quote: "Donald Trump has perhaps deepened racial divisions even further. His bona fides on the issue have been clear for years. recall that he was a central figure in the “birther” movement, a group that actively questioned the authenticity of President Obama’s birth certificate, insisting that he was born in kenya, which would make him ineligible to be president."
• Zelizer, Julian (ed.). 2018. The Presidency of Barack Obama: A First Historical Assessment. Princeton University Press. Quote: "In 2011, Donald Trump, in one of his first political interventions, jumped aboard the birthers’ bandwagon, alleging that “there’s something on that birth certificate that he [Obama] doesn’t like."
• John Sides, Michael Tesler, Lynn Vavreck. 2018. Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America. Princeton University Press. Quote: "As Trump elevated his political profile during the Obama administration, racially charged rhetoric was central. He rekindled the long-discredited claim that Obama was not a native American citizen and became a virtual spokesperson for the “birther” movement. The strategy worked: when Trump flirted with running for president in 2011, his popularity was concentrated among the sizable share of Republicans who thought that President Obama was foreign born or a Muslim or both."

Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

For background, here is the recent discussion from August 2018: Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive 91#Birtherism in the lede? — JFG ^talk 14:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose - clearly as per MOS:LEAD Govindaharihari (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – Undue weight. Also, it would be better to try a simple suggestion and discussion thread before jumping into an RfC process. — JFG ^talk 13:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

  [12] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks. Looks like your proposal didn't get consensus then; let's see what happens now. I'll update the RfC header to point readers to the August discussion. — JFG ^talk 14:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Insignificant for lede - was less significant than his reality TV and other activities at the time, and definitely insignificant in relation to being elected. The "firstness" might also have issues (certainly first in the background to the 2016 cycle - but Trump has had various political dabblings on the local and natiin onal level dating back to the 80s).Icewhiz (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

  It's weird how all these peer-reviewed assessments by political scientists and historians emphasize the birtherism as an initial stepping stone when Trump allegedly had all kinds of noteworthy "political dabblings"... do you think all those political scientists and historians missed this? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

  It's really not appropriate or helpful to be passive aggressive/sarcastic when attempting to counter someone else's policy argument. Just make your WEIGHT/RS argument (which in this case is a legitimate underlying point) without the rhetorical theatrics. That said, I do agree with the point you are striking at: what matters is what the sources say, not the idiosyncratic analysis of our editors here as to what was an "important" event in Trump's story. However, Icewhiz is not wrong that Trump's political (and indeed, specifically presidential) ambitions began decades before the birtherism nutbaggery. What possibly saves the statement as accurate is that it specifically mentions this was the beginning of Trump making waves in Republican politics; prior to Trump's jumping on the anti-Obama bandwagon as part of the series of political riffs that led to his successful 2016 campaign, he had not been seen as a friend to the ideals of the right. That re-branding and re-orienting of himself as a conservative stalwart and an anti-establishment ideologue very much did begin with the birtherism claims--or so our reliable sources which cover that part of his story overwhelmingly say, on the balance.

  Now the flip side of that point is that some may reasonably say that this nuance is not clearly supplied by that one word "republican", which I think is a legitimate complaint and one of the reasons I think your specific proposed wording is less than ideal, even if I agree with the underlying weight argument that the birtherism advocacy is of profound importance to the Trump story and more than DUE for the lead, if we can find the right wording. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

  I'm not sure at all the quotes above support the "firstness" here (they certainly support this was of some significance - but we're questioning lede inclusion here) - Abramowitz says "first big splash" (so - prior "small splashes" not excluded) and Zelizer says "one of his first political interventions" (so - one of a few). It is easy to source that Trump ran full-page political ads in 1987, and that he was involved in the abortive Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2000 - so stating "first" unequivocally is possibly not factual. Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

References

• Support the idea, but oppose the wording on the basis the sentence is awkward to parse. Recommend abandoning the RfC immediately in favor of a simple discussion (per JFG). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The text material is enough; do not mention it in the lede. My oppose applies no matter how the material is worded. And JFG is correct: This should not be an RFC. Please convert it from an RfC to a normal talk page discussion. Per WP:RFC: Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC. --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

  I started a discussion 6 weeks ago. Like most discussions on this talk page, it devolved into forum debates. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Most political science and history treatments of Trump's involvement in politics notes that the birtherism is an important and noteworthy initial stepping stone for Trump, bringing him great prominence. If this were to be added to the lede, it would be the most well-sourced material in this entire article, and the ONLY material in the lede or the article that has been shown to be considered important by political scientists and historians. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:DUE. Very relevant to Trump's political career, much more so than reality TV, for example. Trump's current main claim to notability is being a politician, not a reality TV star, so this inclusion is appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Undue weight in my view for the lede itself. Not a significantly major event in Trump's life and the text in the main body of the article is sufficient in my opinion. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - this was recently rejected in archive 91. Not a large part of the article so does not fit WP:LEAD. Also, think not a lot of external WEIGHT compared to other matters, and finally just seems to not have an enduring effect in his life. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

  That's not even a remotely accurate representation of what WP:LEAD says about this kind of analysis. Here's what the relevant section of WP:LEADREL (WP:Lead_section#Relative_emphasis) actually says regarding such matters:

  "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles. This admonition should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article." (emphasis added)

  Nowhere does WP:LEAD say that "no topic can be covered in the lead unless it is discussed in X number of kilobytes in the main body of the article." And indeed, it would have been a pretty dumb and shortsighted standard for our editorial community to adopt, had it done so: the importance of a topic in reliable sources very rarely maps 1:1 with how much real estate it ultimately takes up in some version of an article. Some topics take up relatively little space in an article because they are relatively straight-forward and more prone to a concise description in plain terms than some other topics. The length of coverage in an article is not in itself determinative of its importance; that measurement is rather made--as a matter of very plain, explicit, and long-standing community consensus--through a WP:WEIGHT analysis, and by fidelity with the sources generally.

  Such is the analysis here: it doesn't take us very much space to note that Trump was the most significant proponent of the birther conspiracy theory for years and repeatedly asserted claims to have proof supporting it. But that very straight-forward statement does not transform the significance which the WP:Reliable sources attribute to that part of the of the Trump story. Or at least that's a reasonable argument. We can always look at the number of cites and depth of coverage to debate the finer points here, but we need to at least be starting from an accurate reading of the relevant policy and how such matters are actually decided on this project (as a faithful representation of the sources, not an arbitrary measure of how many sentences the topic occupies in the article). Snow ^{let's rap} 06:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

  What on earth is he ranting on about ? I said

  (1) This was recently rejected in archive 91 as the most recent;

  (2) This does not fit WP:LEAD - it does not fit the guidance of what lead is supposed to do -- to intro the article and summarize its most important contents, as given at the WP:LEAD marker. (And to not be a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.) No mention of LEADREL though I note it does not fit well there either, as not harmonizing relative size in lead and body;

  (3) Not a lot of external WP:WEIGHT compared to other topics - simple fact of the 6 weeks he spent in 2011 did not get much coverage at the time or since other than passing criticism afterwards that he was involved

  (4) Not an enduring effect in his life - It's been mentioned as just 6 weeks in 2011 that he avoids ever since, and gotten a place in the article but is just not a major part of his activities or life even during those 6 weeks, and not a significant effect on his life.

  Just not LEAD material. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

  Mark, since you've chosen to characterize my response to your arguments as "ranting" (I assume that your reference to a "he" is me, though I am not sure why you assume my gender as such), I will allow myself to be perfectly blunt about a habit of yours I have observed: you have a pronounced proclivity (basically everywhere I have seen you contribute, but on this talk page in particular) of invoking a policy through a link as if just using the shorthand gives credence to your position, even though a reading of the actual policy's wording reveals that is says something very different indeed. So let's look at each of your points above, in turn:

  "(1) This was recently rejected in archive 91 as the most recent;"

  Great. Are you aware that consensus can change? Notably that last discussion was not an RfC soliciting the broader input of the community and actually, it very clearly did not arrive at an established consensus "rejecting" the proposal, as you boldly but quite inaccurately claim. Meanwhile this RfC already has several times the number of participants, and will benefit from a formal close. It therefore, under every relevant policy, stands as the current consensus (or rather will if it resolves with a clear consensus).

  "(2) This does not fit WP:LEAD - it does not fit the guidance of what lead is supposed to do -- to intro the article and summarize its most important contents, as given at the WP:LEAD marker. (And to not be a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.) No mention of LEADREL though I note it does not fit well there either, as not harmonizing relative size in lead and body;"

  You seem to be unaware that MOS:LEADREL is actually a section of WP:LEAD, not an additional policy. It's specifically the portion of that policy which tells how to judge the WP:WEIGHT of relative elements within an article and their corresponding fitness for the lead--and it makes clear that this fitness is not established by looking at how much real estate the topic takes up in the article (the notion you are advancing above), but rather the weight it is ascribed in reliable sources, even if it is a very simple fact that is very quickly summarized in the article body itself. This is exactly the reason I quoted it in its entirety for you above. But this is the perfect example of how you seem to see what you want to see in policy, because nowhere does it say that you "harmonize size" of coverage between the lead and main body; it says the lead should reflect vital facts relative to weight they have been given in the sources, not the length of characters that are required to describe those facts in the main body of our own article. My last post already explained the numerous reasons why the community has never endorsed such an arbitrary approach.

  "(3) Not a lot of external WP:WEIGHT compared to other topics - simple fact of the 6 weeks he spent in 2011 did not get much coverage at the time or since other than passing criticism afterwards that he was involved;"

  Candidly, I don't think you are truly very well informed on this controversy if you genuinely believe that Trump only made this claim for "six weeks in 2011" and that it got little press. Trump made these claims repeatedly over a course of more than five years (please see Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Donald_Trump and the following sources [13][14][15][16] for examples), and on several occasions even claimed to be privy to insider evidence that supported his assertions, during which time the claims were criticized, debunked, and otherwise discussed in literally hundreds of WP:reliable sources. Even more significant, reliable sources summarizing that coverage routinely frame this activity as a turning point for Trump's political fortunes. I do not believe you bring anything remotely approaching WP:Neutral point of view or due diligence in research when it comes to your approach to these easily discoverable sources.

  "(4) Not an enduring effect in his life - It's been mentioned as just 6 weeks in 2011 that he avoids ever since, and gotten a place in the article but is just not a major part of his activities or life even during those 6 weeks, and not a significant effect on his life."

  Please review WP:Original research; policy forbids us from using our idiosyncratic notions of what is "important" to decide what content (lead content included) should look like. Rather we faithfully report what reliable sources say about a matter, and when that matter involves controversy, we cover the span of major opinions about it, but we do not just try to minimize the underlying issues just because some of our editors are of the opinion that the controversy is overblown and should never have existed. That's blatant OR.

  Look, editors operating from good faith can have reasonable differences of opinion about the WP:WEIGHT of this topic and therefore engage in a reasonable debate about whether it belongs in the lead. And if this discussion does lead to a firm consensus, we should accept that result even if it seems inaccurate to us. But that discussion cannot proceed on the basis of your arguments, because you are either unaware of, or purposefully misrepresenting the basic facts (as amply verified in mountains of sources) and the language of the relevant policies, apparently in favour of alternative views which conform to your previously formed opinions--and frankly, it's a pattern. "Rant" over; cheers yourself. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

  Snow - lots of stuff there, but unless you have a question of what I meant or speak to my points it just seems tangential ranting. Again my input was the points: 1 - this topic has been discussed and rejected repeatedly before — as recently as August. 2 - it does not fit the main goals for LEAD (i.e. summarize the major parts of article. 3 - it simply has relatively little WEIGHT coverage compared to other topics (e.g. sex tapes or immigrant families). 4 - and it just does not seem to have had an enduring effect in his life. I.e this is supposed to be his bio story of his life, and this is just not a big deal in his life.

  Now for anything other than you need my meaning of these explained or have something on these specific points, please make it as your own input elsewhere. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Reluctantly support I was hesitant to support, but Trump's involvement in birtherism genuinely is one of the first well-known examples of him dabbling in US politics, and now that politics are what he's known for this is actually very relevant. He's not just "that rich guy from The Celebrity Apprentice" anymore, so his political track record is actually important now. After all, part of MOS:LEAD is quote "establishing context" and "including any prominent controversies." The short single sentence proposed would not be undue. (though for obvious reasons, much more than that would be) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 07:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support, in principle, per my two responses above. I certainly think the precise wording needs some improvement, but this is the genesis of Trump's turn to (and initial success with) the right of American politics, which delivered him into the single most powerful political office in existence, so yes, it's worthy of brief mention in the lead as a significant milestone in his political fortunes. Or more to the point, this is how WP:reliable sources view the matter. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support Well sourced and relevant. Its one of the things he was well known for in politics before truly running. Many others have hit on that and many other relevant reasons to include and I agree. ContentEditman (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Undue weight for the lead. The mention in the body is enough, perhaps at Racial views of Donald Trump it would be appropriate just not here. PackMecEng (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - per WP:NPOV, specifically undue weight, because it doesn't fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. Trump said in September 2016 - "President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Period" - which was widely reported on - (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20). This viewpoint was also expressed in three books - (Made in America: The Annotated Donald J. Trump - American Nightmare: Donald Trump, Media Spectacle and Authoritarian Populism - Enemies of the State: The Radical Right in America from FDR to Trump), and two journal articles. Michael Tesler, the author and co-author of 2 of the sources cited above, also used this article he wrote for the WaPo as a reference in 2 of the aforementioned academic sources cited, where he specifically mentions that Trump said Obama was born in the US. It's cherrypicking and editorializing to include one significant view while excluding the other significant viewpoint. Leave it out of the lead, the text in the main body of the article is sufficient. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

  His later dismissal of birtherism, false claims that Hillary started the birther movement, and later reiteration of birther conspiracy theories in private[17] are not notable enough for the lede. The lede is not where we trace Trump's involvement with the birther movement. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

  Totally agree that the lede is not where we should trace Trump's involvement with the birther movement, which is why I !voted oppose. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support multi-year campaign which led to the presidential election clearly needs mentioning, though perhaps not worded as proposed. zzz (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose(Summoned by bot) Doesn't belong in the lead, perhaps in the lede of Political positions of Donald Trump ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Coverage was and remains both extensive and high-profile, to the point where it still comes up fairly regularly concerning him. Many sources go so far as to cite it as a key reason why he was eventually elected president. A sentence in the lead for it is clearly WP:DUE. --Aquillion (talk) 01:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – Undue weight to already over-long lede; agree it could go into intro section on politics Aboudaqn (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – Undue weight as per other responses. VeritasVox (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per above undue weight, and besides, it doesn't seem accurate to me: his presidential run in 2000 predates this. ARR8 (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The birther talk was something he starting involving himself in in 2011, around the time he was teasing a 2012 run. By the time he did run in 2016 this became just another one of the "controversial or false" statements of that campaign and arguably wasn't even one of the more notable ones to come from it.WP:DUE.LM2000 (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

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

References to racist

There are blatant BLP violations in this article, such as would have never been tolerated in the Obama article. The use of "perceived as" before racist is a weasel method of inserting a libel into an article. The evidence is that Trump is no racist and that this is a smear. No reference to racist should be made. (PeacePeace (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC))

I made the section heading neutral per heading guidelines and WP:TPO bullet 12. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@PeacePeace: This has been discussed and adjudicated in a recent RfC. However, if you can show new reliable sources making the case "that Trump is no racist and that this is a smear", please submit them for discussion. — JFG ^talk 09:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I thought wikipedia worked the other way you need to show reliable sources that aren't just opinions making the case "that Trump is a racist and that this is not a smear" עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM ~Awilley (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@AmYisroelChai: Trump is a racist, and that blindingly obvious fact is fully sourced in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC) Alright, please scale it back a bit Scjessey; that kind of response only goes to engender doubt as to your bias just when you are trying to assure someone that the content is predicated in sources and not the idiosyncratic analysis of our editors. In short, it does more damage than support to your position and makes the work of other editors (who don't base their editorial commentary in self-assured WP:TRUTH statements like "Trump is' X, Y, Z", why can't you see this blindingly obvious fact?' X, Y, Z") that much more difficult. Snow let's rap 14:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC) No, I will not "scale it back" at all. When something is patently true, as in the case of Trump's racism (and even more so, his unprecedented mendacity), we shouldn't be watering it down for the sake of appearance. Facts are facts, no matter how uncomfortable some editors might be with them. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC) Well this is why we have WP:CONSENSUS and there is zero chance that we would ever use wiki voice for "Trump is a racist". Editor behavior as to WP:BLP and WP:DE is a separate issue, and you're flirting with a topic ban in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC) See my more recent comment below. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The standard on this project is WP:Verifiability, not WP:TRUTH, and as such, your editorial positions and talk page comments should be predicated in arguments which evaluate the WP:WEIGHT of perspectives presented in sources, not openly polemic statements, from your own perspective, about how it's "patently true that Trump is a racist" and so-forth. If that's your belief, fine; I'd be surprised if the average Wikipedia editor wouldn't agree with you if you were having this conversation off-project over a cup of tea. But the fact of the matter is that: A) that's not how we establish the appropriateness of content for this encyclopedia and B) by using this inappropriate methodology, often accompanied by a very confrontational / "it's sooooo obvious" tone, you frequently own goal the very proposition you seek to support, because you give your rhtetorical opponents on the other side of the content issue a chance to point the finger and say "see, this isn't about applying policy, this editor just wants the article to reflect what he sees as the truth". Snow ^{let's rap} 16:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I am fond of terse comments. I don't enjoying waxing lyrical and fence sitting. I prefer to speak plainly. The current language of this article is fully supported by reliable sources and there is no need for a change. It's already quite "kind" to Trump in its coverage of his racist comments and behavior. As a recent poll says, most Americans think Trump is a racist, and I suspect that number is higher beyond American borders, particularly in those places Trump described as "shithole countries". If you're unhappy with my manner of speaking, bring it up at my talk page or at WP:ANI. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Clearly I don't support a change in the statement either, so that's obviously not the point my comments are seeking to impress upon you. Neither are terseness or proclivity for fence-sitting the issues here. The concerns regard your reaching towards WP:original research statements in your commentary here and in tendentious and WP:disruptive editing generally. And while I have zero motivation to take this to either your talk page or ANI (and I very much doubt you chose to issue that challenge in isolation to the fact that I just advised another editor against that approach), I'm telling you in good-faith, editor to editor, that if you do not find a way to moderate your inclination towards polemic statements about the subjects of BLPs, typically accompanied by aggressive and superfluous comments about the WP:TRUTH, I do not doubt that someone will take you up on that offer, and probably sometime soon. And not withstanding my advice to Pack (with whom I strongly disagree on the content issue, but whom I think is approaching matters with more decorum and with language more consistent with policy), I also very much agree with Mandruss that if you persist in the WP:IDHT regarding such statements, you are likely to run head first into a topic ban, whether it's at ANI or AE. This is a WP:DS article, afterall. That's my honest good-faith advice; clearly you disagree, but I'd point out that I'm not the only one trying to give it to you. Snow ^{let's rap} 17:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

User:PeacePeace - please do suggest an alternate wording, if - and only if - you think you have a better phrasing. That wording is a recent and weak change, not much liked. There was long-standing consensus from February to NOT include allegations of racism in lead at all link 1 with the wording "criticized as", then a recent weak consensus to say something about racial stance in lead in September link 2 which was dinged as WP:WEASEL (I dinged it as failing WP:LEAD, WP:BLP and WP:BLPLEAD, and WP:RACIST) for the phrase "Many of his comments and actions have been perceived by some as racially charged". That was almost immediately followed by another long/confused RFC over wording, which wound up 9 Oct saying "Many of his comments and actions have been perceived as racially charged or racist” link3 which had to be interpreted out of the tangle and did not seem a strong consensus but was felt clear enough. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

PeacePeace has a point about weasel-wording. Donald Trump#Racial views begins, "Trump has a history of making racially controversial remarks and taking actions that are perceived as racially motivated." This has four sources - which is always a red light - of writers saying Trump is a racist. But all the sources prove is that some writers perceive this. And per WP:LABEL, articles should not call subjects racist unless they self-identify as racist. The article David Duke does not call him a racist. I would change racially motivated to racist. Also, it is an interesting question whether Trump thinks that minorities are inferior or cynically appeals to the dark side of his most hard core supporters. TFD (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The article does not call him racist. It says he has done things that some people have called racist, which is true and cited. We can and do omit accusations of racism per WP:UNDUE (Jeff Sessions' article treads very lightly), but like Duke, being racist is too closely connected to Trump's public persona. ghost 20:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply that it did. But it says that his remarks are perceived as racially motivated which conveys the same meaning. "Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated." In this case, one can say, "well I didn't actually call him racist," but that is the meaning that is being conveyed. TFD (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Big NPOV & BLF Violation: Imagine if an editor went to the Obama article and inserted: "Obama has a history of making [BIG NEGATIVE TERM] controversial remarks and taking actions that are perceived as [BIG NEGATIVE TERM] motivated." No reliable source says any such thing because (weasel passive voice) "are perceived" cannot be documented, neither can "motivated" be documented. There is no way to know what persons' perceptions are. Instead of "are perceived . . . ," a reliable source could say

"are called by his political opponents who assume racist motive, though if he has racist motives, they could not be known, as motivation is a secret of every man's heart."

However, this still is a weasel method of smearing somebody and violation of BLP. To document such a thing as "racist" would require two reliable sources (at least) that report that Donald Trump considers "race" as a legitimate category and that Donald Trump considers one race superior to another. If a source has no such quotation from Donald Trump, the source is making a judgmental inference which violates BLP here. (PeacePeace (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC))

WP:NOTFORUM. Scjessey, please tone it down a notch. ~Awilley (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I will strongly oppose any attempt to sanitize this article. Trump is a racist, and there are numerous reliable sources that say so, and yet the article does not even explicitly state that. The whataboutism being employed by PeacePeace is a pathetic reason for denying the obvious facts here. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC) you mean a bunch of anti trump writers call him racist that doesn't make it so and since per wiki policy calling him a racist is libel on your account and you seem to have a biased pov so you shouldn't have any say in the matterעם ישראל חי (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC) Those sources suck, do better. The Guardian and the Washington Post are poor quality opinion articles and really Diversity Inc? Heck your post might be a BLP vio. PackMecEng (talk) 13:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC) The Washington Post and The Guardian are about as close to being archetypical WP:reliable sources as you can get, as well-established journalistic entities with reputations for helping to set the standard for investigative norms going back a century and a half and two centuries, respectively. If you want to challenge them as RS, by all means head over to WP:RSN, but don't blame me if your efforts there get you ridiculed. As to their being op-eds, uh, yeah, they're works analyzing the character of a political figure; of course they involve opinion. That doesn't make them unacceptable as sources under any provision of any policy; indeed, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV all make it clear that sources are not invalidated for stating an opinion--POV as the term applies on this project refers to views originating with our editors, not our sources. And the current wording of the statement makes it clear that these views are not being presented as empirical fact or a universal belief, but are rather the views of particular individuals. All of this is above-board and completely consistent with our relevant policies and long-standing community consensus on opinionated statements. Snow let's rap 14:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC) They are certainly RS for their news content. Their opinion sections are not good enough to support calling a BLP racist in Wiki's voice. It comes down to would you put that wording in an article supported by those sources? The answer is a blindingly obvious no. PackMecEng (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC) @PackMecEng: Help me out here. Is somebody seriously advocating that the article call Trump a racist in wiki voice? I don't think even Scjessey is advocating that—he knows it ain't happenin' and he's just venting. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC) @Mandruss: Our BLP police does not make that distinction. You make a claim about a BLP ANYWHERE on wiki you should have appropriate sources to back it up. Appropriate sources are sources that are good enough to put in an article. I get it they are venting, this is not the place for that. PackMecEng (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC) @PackMecEng: So you're discussing editor behavior, not article content? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC) @Mandruss: I am discussing how policy and BLP apply in this situation. Is my assessment wrong? PackMecEng (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC) @PackMecEng: "This situation" being Scjessey's comment above? I don't know enough to voice an opinion. But I question whether article talk pages are the proper venue to discuss possible BLP vios on article talk pages. I think one would normally request a strike on the user's UTP. Then, if there is no strike and they feel strongly enough about it, they would post a complaint at WP:ANI. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC) Your assessment of the relevant policies is wrong, as I see it, but for what it's worth, I also find that Scjessey's comments here often veer into the polemic. Mandruss is correct that the appropriate forum for addressing such matters is ANI, but I will tell you bluntly that I think you will be opening a can of worms if you take the issue that far; while I personally find Scjessey's WP:TRUTH-based commentary on the "facts" here concerning from time to time, the conduct in question does not fall outside the scope of what is usually seen, by the community at large, as acceptable editorial analysis. You're welcome to push the envelope on that nuanced issue--I'll even comment myself if I see the discussion there, since I know Scjessey has been asked to tone this kind of rhetoric down here on more than one occasion--but, honestly, if I were in your position, I wouldn't do it unless I felt it was absolutely necessary, and I'd be careful to have your ducks in a row first, given that ANI examines the conduct of all involved parties. Snow let's rap 16:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC) I would agree with that assessment. "Trump raped my friend's little sister" would cross the BLP line, but "Trump is a racist" is very borderline. For the record, I did not just claim that Trump raped anybody, let alone my friend's little sister. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC) Sorry, but you are simply patently, unequivocally wrong that our policies do not make that exact distinction; once again, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS all reiterate that exact standard. Two of those polices are pillar polices and the other is our primary policy for the exact purpose of identifying when sources are suitable. And no portion of WP:BLP can (or even attempts to) override those clearly stated, entirely basic aspects of sourcing on this project. Further, as Mandruss points out, the statement is not remotely "in Wikipedia's voice". Rather it explicitly states that these are particular views of particular individuals and institutions and in so doing, it links to an article that contains hundreds of RS discussing the span of opinions on this topic, making this one of the most thoroughly attributed statements in the history of this project. Again, all entirely in sync with what policy and community consensus require in a situation such as this. Snow let's rap 15:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC) Yeah no, the sources for that statement are not sufficient to meet BLP, NPOV, or RS. They just don't. I am sure better sources could be found (might even want to check this article for those btw) to support that which would be good by policy but the ones used clearly do not. PackMecEng (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC) Perhaps we're talking past each other. When I say this statement is properly attributed, I am including the various sources which appear in the article which is wikilinked in that statement. The most common form of attribution on this project is accomplished by placing the relevant links in the reference footnotes, because most articles require only a small amount of sources to meet a WP:WEIGHT burden. However, when that is impracticable (as it is here and with most topics regarding President Trump because of the sheer number of sources needed to meet WEIGHT requirements) other methodologies can be used to supplement those sources referenced via the footnotes. In this case, both methodologies are used. If, on the other hand, you are saying that all of our sources used to discuss the topic of perceptions of Donald Trump's racial views are collectively insufficient (that does not seem to be the case from your last post, but I'm adding this corollary to address both possible interpretations) then, in that event, I don't know what to tell you but to remind you that consensus in the RfC held otherwise, and to suggest that you let the matter go, not withstanding your misgivings, at least for a time. Snow let's rap 16:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC) To be clear, and as said by PackMecEng above, I am not calling for any change in the current language, which is perfectly fine. My strident objections above are to the proposed watering down of the existing language. As for the quality of the sources I used above, I just took the first three decent news organs Google spat back with "Trump is a racist" as my search question. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC) The current language is probably about as good as it will ever be. Trump is objectively racist, based on the dictionary definition of the word, and backed by an abundance of sources. On top of that, he actively uses racism and other demagogic tricks to fire up his base. It has actually worked very well for him, as it has for similar figures in history. - MrX 🖋 17:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC) Are we getting close to Godwin's law? PackMecEng (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC) Let's not fight fire with fire; neither Mr.x nor Scjessey should be forwarding their personal views in place of WP:WEIGHT arguments here, but it doesn't help to engage in polemics in return. And not for nothing, that article you just linked to includes quotes from Godwin himself regarding Trump which you may want to read before you invoke that "law" reflexively. Snow let's rap 18:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC) I just found it amusing, but yes I know Godwin years after the quote mentioned Trump. Still funny. PackMecEng (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC) If my personal view happens to be the same as the predominant view of a large number of scholars, journalists, and lay people all over the world, cited in numerous reliable sources, then it is indeed appropriate to state my personal view. We need to stop WP:REHASHING this every time some bright-eyed editor decides to invoke whataboutism. We don't have to re-prove the case every time someone challenges it. We have already determined consensus on this content. Let's move one?- MrX 🖋 19:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC) how many of these people were anti Trump before they decided he was racist and are just pushing their personal view like you are עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC) Enough, please. This is WP:NOTAFORUM and even if it were, I doubt either of you is likely to convince the other to substantially change your views. Long-form speculation from the perspectives of our editors about what people may or may not believe about Trump (followed by yet more speculation by our editors as to why they think that people hold those views) is not conductive to any legitimate editorial objective, so both sides should desist in forwarding these perspectives. There are other spaces online that will happily host this debate if you feel you absolutely must have it. Snow let's rap 19:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC) I agree that this matter has already been settled by a recent consensus discussion, and that this thread is by and large an inappropriate exercise that accomplishes little more than to give each side of that prior discussion an excuse to engage in statements that serve to declare their respective confirmation bias. It's arguably disruptive to have encouraged the OP (who as a new editor may have been unaware of the previous consensus) to try to re-open this debate, so soon after an RfC which reached a consensus and had a formal close. That said, whenever you choose to engage over the underlying facts, you are still expected to do so in terms which conform to relevant policy. You mentioned sources incidentally, but most of your comments were clearly you engaging in making personal assessments of Trump as "objectively a racist, who does X, Y, and Z unpleasant things". Since none of those comments are useful to an editorial analysis, being a form of WP:Original research, those opinions should be kept to yourself, as policy directs. There would be no problem if you instead said "Source A says X, and source B says Y", ect., but as you point out, this issue already has a standing consensus, so I suggest that both "sides" here drop the matter, rather than engage in trading arguments as to the WP:TRUTH. I'd like to remind everyone again that this topic falls under WP:discretionary sanctions. Snow let's rap 19:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC) We have already done "Source A says X, and source B says Y", etc., multiple time, here and at the main article. We don't have to keep doing it. Discretionary sanctions also apply to people who don't drop the stick. This discussion started on a false premise, and has gone down hill from there.- MrX 🖋 19:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC) I think if you re-review my last post, you will find that I agree with each of the points that you've just made, and indeed made them myself. Yes, there is a standing consensus. Yes, it was arguably inappropriate to encourage this line of discussion so soon, given that standing consensus. Yes, this entire thread has predictably just become an opportunity for some of our more motivated editors to shove their opinions about Trump at one another. And yes, it should come to an immediate stop. The only point where we are contention about is whether your initial comments above were appropriate; in my view, they only contributed to the WP:original research/WP:NOTAFORUM issues. But since we agree about so much of the rest, perhaps you will assist me in trying bring this editorially worthless divergence to a close by leading by example and not commenting further. There's a standing consensus; if someone wishes to challenge it, there's always the WP:CLOSECHALLENGE process. Short of that, I do not see an editorial point to both sides continuing to engage in an effort at shoving their original research at eachother. Snow let's rap 20:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support Motion to close or hat all this. PackMecEng (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey and PackMecEng, I thought I'd clear one thing up, since there seems to be confusion on this issue: opinion pieces published in reputable news sources are reliable sources, but only for statements attributed to the author. So if you are using the opinion piece linked above by Scjessey, you cannot say, "Trump is a racist.^[Citation]" but you can say, "According to Richard Wolffe, Trump is a racist.^[Citation]" (Obviously the latter would be inappropriate for this article per WP:WEIGHT.) So in the hatted comments above Scjessey is incorrect in saying the source supports their blunt assertion that "Trump is a racist", and PackMecEng is incorrect in suggesting that something published in The Guardian is a poor quality source. There's nothing wrong with the source, it just can't support the statement it was attached to. ~Awilley (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

If it cannot support the statement it was attached to how is it a good source? My objection was opinion articles in general are unsuitable for either of the statements you suggest for the reasons you mention. It was not that the Guardian or Washington Post are not RS, they certainly are. PackMecEng (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

You wrote, "Those sources suck, do better. The Guardian and the Washington Post are poor quality opinion articles". I can see that I might have read that too literally. Thank you for clarifying what you meant. ~Awilley (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Any article saying "Trump is a racist" will always be an opinion piece, because racism is subjective and impossible to quantify in a meaningful way. That is why we are forced to dance around the issue with terms like "described as" and "perceived as" in the first place. It is also why Wikipedia will never be able to explicitly state (in wikivoice) that Trump is what we all know he is. The same goes for Trump's extraordinary mendacity. We can't say Trump is a liar, even though every major news organ in the known universe has now called him precisely that, because it's too subjective a label. But the facts are the facts, and the text we currently have in the article adequately gets us where we need to be without crossing the line. And that is why I strenuously object to having it watered down more than it already is. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Mention of the Badasvlad game

Hi friends, should we mention Badasvlad game in the Popular culture section? The fantasy spy adventure game, as it is said on its website [18], appears to be related to Trump's beauty contest held in Russia. Timelan (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Nyet.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Da, nyet. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 November 2018

Line 662 is spelled incorrectly. 2600:1700:9E30:2440:8473:89C8:B50B:D16C (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: can you please comment with which line that is? The text would be more helpful than the line-number, since I can't see line-numbers :( DannyS712 (talk) 05:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I copied the wikitext of the article to a text editor and line 662 is |book3 = Presidency of Donald Trump - I don't see any misspelling there. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2018

Change "the fifth to have won the election while losing the popular vote." to read as follows "the fifth to have won the election while losing the popular vote. (Editor's note: The United States of America does not elect presidents based on a national popular vote. The USA elects presidents based on a state by state popular vote with the winner getting credit by state in the electoral college.)" 2001:5B0:4AC6:B1A8:5D47:A48:20FA:8BCF (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Too detailed for the lede. There is a link to an article that discusses the electoral college in both the lede and the section of the body detailing this. O3000 (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. This is the wrong article for educating readers about the American electoral system. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

See discussion below. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Almost 800 citations?

Isn't this getting rather silly? The list of citations is longer than the article itself. Imagine if Britannica did this!!! You'd need two forklifts to carry the whole encyclopedia!! 108.200.234.93 (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

How else do you document all the things about this gentleman? PackMecEng (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think so. The subject is the President of the United States, and arguably the most controversial figure ever to hold that office. Given the stringent requirements of WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:CITE it was inevitable that this was going to be a longish article heavily weighed with citations. I for one am pleased with the referencing which I believe reflects well on everyone who has contributed to the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, I get that, but there are paragraphs in the article where every sentence ends with between 6 and 18 citations, *each*. It's a readability issue, at least. 108.200.234.93 (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Those are generally attached to contriversial sections of the article. There are so many because of the possible WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT issues that can arise with such statements. It can look a little funny, the only way around that I know of would be bundling several citations into one. PackMecEng (talk) 02:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

That would not be a terrible idea. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 02:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree btw, it is a pain to do and a pain to maintain. PackMecEng (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Indubitably. PackMecEng (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@108.200, between 6 and 18 citations? I did a quick scroll-through and the worst I saw was 4. ("Following Iran’s ballistic missile tests on January 29, 2017, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on 25 Iranian individuals and entities in February 2017.[640][641][642][643]") Anyway I just wanted to point out that we have an essay on WP:Citation overkill that contains some advice on trimming excess citations. ~Awilley (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

You're correct - I was using a script to count the cites and it didn't take into account the number would exceed 99. Anyway, it still seems excessive (and difficult to read). 108.200.234.93 (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Cite bundles aren't a pain to create. They're fairly easy to make and the nested citations can still have independent IDs. If there's cite bloat in the article, readability is a paramount issue. I've just read through the whole thing and the worst cite issues are four visible cite links long. They are mostly three figure numbers which makes them a bit bulky. bagging the 3s and 4s might help the article from a visual stand point. Also on a side note, Britannica would take about 4 forklifts to move around if it contained a quarter as much info as Wikipedia, with or without citations. Edaham (talk) 06:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Edaham: the nested citations can still have independent IDs. How? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The list of citations is longer than the article itself. Um, no.
there are paragraphs in the article where every sentence ends with between 6 and 18 citations, *each*. Um, no.
I'm undecided as to whether this is trolling or just off-the-scale recklessness a la the article's subject individual.
I only see 3 or 4 fours, and at least some of them don't need to be fours. We don't need four cites for the statement that Trump had a weekly unpaid guest spot on Fox & Friends, for example; it's undisputed and we don't need a bunch of cites to show sufficient WP:WEIGHT for the content (ie, WEIGHT doesn't have to be cited, it only has to exist). But I haven't been able to sort out which cite(s) of those four would support the entire sentence.
I'd be willing to bundle the fours if any remain after CITEKILL trimming, which I'll leave to others. I think bundling the far-more-numerous threes would be going too far. Threes are quite common in well-cited articles and the fact that the numbers are in the three digits is not sufficient reason to bundle. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Multiple cites are cause for suspicion of someone trying a bit too hard to convince that something deserves inclusion or saying as stated. If multiple cites are not major venues AND diverse sources, the that is confirmation of bad cites. At best it’s not BESTSOURCES, and suspect more than that. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The main problem is the article is full of headline news articles that are backup more click bait to show notability. This will all be fixed in time as real publication's come out and the play by play stuff is replaced with encyclopedic content.--Moxy (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Infobox birthplace again

Re: [19]

To my mind, this is not a strong enough consensus to supersede this. Strength of consensus includes level of participation.

Another factor to be considered is that, even with all the attention this article gets, and particularly its infobox, consensus #2 stood for two years before somebody felt it needed revisiting. Thus it has a large de facto component not enjoyed by the new consensus.

I'm more interested in the process than the content on this one. Maybe I just need to get a life? ―Mandruss ☎ 13:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Mandruss The 2016 discussion was only slightly more and split at least 3 ways so not that strong. Here, not really any procedure foul to my eyes. Procedurally, long-standing requires only a rfc to overturn, one cannot make a RFC be long-standing to match a long-standing content and it is the newer RFCs that get deference while older RFCs become replaced. (Just saying we oppose immediately repeated asks but have replaced other RFCs here after time passed that was less than 2 years.) Level of activity seems tracked to elections or newness, so the slightly larger number in 2016 is not something that can be forced. (I note that I’m responding to your concern, and the only one ... other times / topics have seen stampedes of edit inputs.) While I would have left it open longer, this RFC was out for a week and unopposed so SNOW applies and I have seen SNOW close done in a day or less, so cannot see a week as improper. (You and a couple others commented to the recent discussion but did not actually state a !vote position, so there were 5 Supports and no Oppose, and your remark about evolution should be allowed could be read as kind of supportive sixth saying to go-ahead or that the old RFC was no longer binding.)

I do note there was no declared SNOW or close or altering of the consensus list, participation just ended and it just got archived and the edit implemented. The 2016 talk also did not formally close, but it got noted as the #2 in list of consensus talks.

So... I suggest you talk to the editors talk page, and then perhaps you re-open this RFC topic as a clarification discussion without the usual opposition to immediate repeated asking. Mention the 2016 rfc and !vote numbers, then the 2018 rfc and !vote numbers, see what comes, and edit the consensus list to match, OK ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The recent discussion is supportive enough of "Queens, New York City", to extend the outcome of the 2016 discussion, which itself included significant support to include "Queens". Nobody has contested the edit since Ergo Sum implemented it a few days ago. Amending consensus #2 accordingly. Yes, Mandruss, we all need a life some days… — JFG ^talk 15:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

which itself included significant support to include "Queens". And greater opposition to that. Nobody has contested the edit since Ergo Sum implemented it a few days ago. A few days compared to the two years that nobody contested the omission of Queens, a period during which the article got far more attention (even per day) than it has for the past few days.
I was prepared to let this go until I saw these extra-flimsy arguments. I'm still prepared to let it go, but not without responding to them. I suggest just letting it die a natural death. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry, be happy; everything's gonna be alright. — JFG ^talk 19:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Lead footnote re electoral system

If I'm not mistaken the edit request above is not the first suggestion for clarification of the electoral system in the lead, for the benefit of readers unfamiliar with the American Way. I think open prose there is a non-starter, but I would be far more amenable to an unintrusive footnote. The wording suggested above obviously would need some work. Comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I can't really see the harm in it; I would think the internal link is more likely to be the gateway for explanation for those unfamiliar with the American electoral system, but an explanatory footnote for redundancy wouldn't hurt. Snow ^{let's rap} 14:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

That sentence in the lead includes a little link, the fifth, which provides the needed explanation. Clearly it wasn't enough to prevent the above edit request and at least one before it, and who knows how many readers silently move on without the understanding. I don't think it's particularly intuitive that they will find enlightenment at a link of "the fifth". We could say we've done our part, and readers should follow any links in the vicinity of the prose they don't understand. Or we say can that adding three little superscripted characters will help some of them and won't significantly impede those who don't need the help. Footnotes are vastly less common than wikilinks—I count 15 links in that paragraph alone—which makes them substantially more visible.
One could argue that the same reasoning could be applied to any non-obvious link, resulting in footnotes all over the article, but I would counter that this case is more critical than most.
In my opinion the addition of a footnote doesn't violate an existing consensus, so I've BOLDly added one.[20] If it's disputed then maybe we can get some participation here. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I have amended the footnote to provide a self-contained explanation of the process. See what you think. — JFG ^talk 20:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: Philosophical difference. My main objective was merely to get the reader to United States Electoral College with higher visibility than any wikilink could (and that link doesn't exist in the prose anyway). I could have met my main objective with only the last sentence, "For more, see United States Electoral College." and the rest was mostly justifying the footnote. Once the objective is met and we get the reader to that article, there's little point in duplicating the information there; if your idea is to provide a simplified version of the information there, perhaps it should be provided there instead of here. Also, by providing three links instead of one we reduce the chances that the reader will go to the most informative article about the electoral system.
All that said, I don't feel that strongly about it and I'm working on singing along. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

Change {{pp-30-500|small=yes}} to an appropriate {{pp}} tag Abequinn14 (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done until ECP is restored. -- ferret (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 November 2018

Currently, the protection template is: {{pp-30-500|small=yes}}. Given that the article is currently fully protected, I request that this be amended to be {{pp|small=yes}} DannyS712 (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done ~Awilley (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Interview: Donald Trump (Sunday 24 October 2010)

• https://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/interview-donald-trump-on-his-guiding-forces-of-work-willpower-and-women-1-478871

69.181.23.220 (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you see anything from this interview that would be worth adding to the article? Or maybe it's better suited for Donald Trump and golf? — JFG ^talk 07:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump interview by Nancy Collins for ABC’s "Primetime Live." in 1994 (Transcript)

• https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/donald-trump-women-unearthed-1994-primetime-interview-nancy-collins-938176

69.181.23.220 (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles in german newspapers about Donald Trump, often use "Drumpf" - however there is a filter that bans such URLs ... ?

69.181.23.220 (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I think this is a non-issue. In a quick search I was unable to find any such usage. And there is no article at the German Wikipedia using this name. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump has no filter.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Either the IP is misinformed or s/he is trolling us. Nobody in Germany ever used "Drumpf" to refer to Donald Trump. The reason this word is filtered out from Wikipedia is that in the race to the election, some editors had installed a browser extension that replaced every instance of the word "Trump" by "Drumpf" for comical relief. The reason for that was a February 2016 comedy segment that displayed "DRUMPF" in big bold beautiful letters and made fun of his name, while referring to a hoax about his German ancestry. I guess any publicity is good publicity… — JFG ^talk 07:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: Deutsche Welle has 4 articles.....69.181.23.220 (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Even if true, it's trivia. O3000 (talk) 11:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd guess the "Drumpf" thing kicked-off with the Last Week Tonight with John Oliver February 28, 2016 "Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight)" episode. That's where it redirects. X1\ (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 November 2018

"Forbes estimates his net worth to be $3.1 billion." This is a contentious statement, Trump self reports a value over 10 billion, and other sources show significantly different values.

10 Billion https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-says-hes-worth-ten-billion-2015-7

150-250 Million https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/2011/a6141-08-opn.html SushiStapler (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. The statement itself can't be contentious because it explicitly says where the figure comes from. And what he self-reports is not particularly relevant per WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. If you think other figures should be mentioned, and have a specific piece of text that you'd like to include in the article, please say what it is and it can be considered here. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@SushiStapler: The discrepancy with lowball and highball estimates of Trump's wealth has been addressed several times, and consenss was found. Prior discussions are listed under #Current consensus, item 5. — JFG ^talk 01:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

2nd and 3rd paragraph has no sources

can we please add some or remove the content — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.216.29.11 (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Lead sections usually are supposed to stand on the rest of the article. See WP:LEADCITE. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Genuinely confused

What purpose does combining the extended-confirmed and pending-changes-confirmed serve? - Topper13009 (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't, but there's no harm in it either. In the future, if full protection is required once again, this would be a backup once full protection expired. Enigma^msg 21:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

That bad-taste joker - maybe by a compromized account or a longtime Wikipedia-user going crazy over current politics - shouldn't have the power to set the rules for editing this page. And extended-confirmed status cannot even prohibit such edits and its Siri fallout. With edits like these Wikipedia has to live with but containing the Siri fallout is possible, important and effective: Wikipedia could simply establish a new pending changes protection level where all edits would have to be scanned for vandalism by two independent pending changes reviewers with some time-delay between the confirmations. --NmbsT (talk) 08:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

This article has been extended-confirmed for more than a year - the protection isn't due to "Siri fallout" but because even semi-protection is not enough to stop vandalism to the page. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Save a copy of every URL cited at web.archive.org

• https://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/interview-donald-trump-on-his-guiding-forces-of-work-willpower-and-women-1-478871

original

• https://web.archive.org/save/https://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/interview-donald-trump-on-his-guiding-forces-of-work-willpower-and-women-1-478871

archive request

• https://web.archive.org/web/20181119014913/https://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/interview-donald-trump-on-his-guiding-forces-of-work-willpower-and-women-1-478871

result

69.181.23.220 (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. At this article, there is consensus to only include archives for dead sources (see #Current consensus, item 25). — JFG ^talk 07:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: So when sources disappear you shrug? Save a copy of every URL cited at web.archive.org does not require including in citations, merely to make a https://web.archive.org/save/URL that can be added when needed.

69.181.23.220 (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Every link added to Wikipedia is automatically saved at Wayback. Generally you don't need to do it manually. -- GreenC 05:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Recent wave of image vandalism

Today's brief replacement of his image got some publicity, so we are getting a wave of imitators. I have fully-protected the article for three hours. At the end of that time let's try letting it go back to the usual EC protection and see if it suffices; if not we may need to lock it again. With this kind of viral vandalism, reverting each instance and blocking the perpetrator is insufficient; it's better not to let it happen at all. Let's all keep a close eye on this article for the rest of the day at least. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I was mistaken. These are not imitators; these are compromised accounts. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

As before. I unprotected yesterday because people were clamoring for unprotection but it's a continuation of what was going on earlier. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Rolling_archive#23_November_2018. Enigma^msg 20:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I don't know how many of these accounts the hacker has, but it's a lot. Some are admin accounts; I got blocked myself for my pains. I gather this has been going on for a day or two now. Anyhow, I will be watching carefully when the full protection expires. I know it's unusual/unheard of to lock an article like this, but if we have to, we have to. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I added 12h pending changes for security, so that we are not suddenly caught with an unprotected article. When your protection expires it will be night on this side of the Atlantic, and I will likely not be around.--21:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC) .--Ymblanter (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the pending changes should be left in place, regardless, for instances such as this. That's why I added it yesterday. RE: Melanie I see from BN that it's 3 admin accounts thus far. Enigma^msg 21:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, I restored indefinite EC protection. PC remains in place as well. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

One easy solution for preventing infobox image vandalism would be to make a template for the infobox, fully protect that, and then transclude it here. That would at least keep any vandalized images out of Siri searches. ~Awilley (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: That's a smart idea. The infobox doesn't need to be changed very often and adding undesirable images to the prose has no effect on Google (in this box) or Siri results. @MelanieN, Enigmaman, Ymblanter, and GreenC: What do you think? It's still ongoing (last was four hours ago) so it'd be better if we gathered a small consensus on this idea sooner rather than later. We could fully protect the new template and then reduce the main article back to EC (and I'm not sure what effect PC is having on it as doesn't it only prevent non-autoconfirmed and to edit EC, you need to be extendedconfirmed?). Anarchyte (talk | work) 05:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion. As for PC, as has been mentioned, when the article needs to be fully protected, the protection is set to expire and then it would be fully unprotected. I guess the best way to avoid that would be to set full protection to infinite and then manually unprotect rather than setting a date. Enigma^msg 06:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Enigmaman: That's what I thought, thanks. I've gone ahead and made Template:Donald Trump infobox and series. If we decide to use this, it should be ready to go (despite the error due to the missing citations). It is currently unprotected. Anarchyte (talk | work) 06:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: taking advantage of it currently being unprotected, I have added a nowiki-ed notelist template to eliminate the error. But, that led me to wonder: can that note be properly transcluded, so that it does show up on this page? --DannyS712 (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@DannyS712: The note will work on this page, just not on the template page. Anarchyte (talk | work) 07:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: I have added the note itself, along with the references it uses, to the template's page to ensure that the information retains its reference without depending on the main Donald Trump page. Feel free to revert me if I'm not being helpful - I'm not an admin, but I'm trying to help in any way I can. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I would say let us do it and then take to AN and see what the community thinks.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Okay, I'll go ahead and make the change and a thread at WP:AN. This makes five in support, with the other two having not edited for a few hours. Anarchyte (talk | work) 09:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. @MusikAnimal and TonyBallioni: You may also be interested (forgot to ping you there). Anarchyte (talk | work) 09:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The curious thing about this story: multiple compromised admin accounts. Valuable property to burn on a 1-time vandal edit, or even to possess at all. At least they are flushed out over something harmless. -- GreenC 05:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• @MusikAnimal: would you mind commenting on this to whatever degree you can since it has been raised on an article talk. I *think* this has come up in the myriad of discussions about the recent compromises, but you are much more familiar with the porn vandal and dealing with it than I am. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• @Anarchyte, Ymblanter, and Awilley:--Does the vandal-edits (at-least) consist of replacement/addition of images? EFs can deal with that, very easily.∯WBG^converse 12:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, indeed, the vandal only replaced and/or added images, as far as I can see. I am not sure whether an edit filter is a better solution, but it is probably best discussed at AN.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Ymblanter, it's a better solution, because it will allow the page to stay non-sysop-protected. I was testing an EF over test-wiki and that pretty much disallows any addition/replacement of new images, except by sysops (we can even exclude them, shall we wish so), as to any article/articles of our choice. Wonder why nobody raised the prospects of an EF.∯WBG^converse

I would be in favor of a fully protected template for the infobox as a temporary solution. The problem is that admin accounts have been compromised and the template will have far fewer watchers than this article. A solution that addresses the root cause is what we need long term.- MrX 🖋 14:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm working on some solutions. You should know the vandal is more than likely reading this discussion, though. Best we chat off-wiki, as inconvenient as it may be. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Title of 'President of the United States' in the pros & the infobox title

Discussion continues at [21]. O3000 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Per WP:JOBTITLES should we change President of the United States to president of the United States for this article & all the other bios of US presidents? GoodDay (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC) Depends on context. Yes, when not attached to the name of particular president it should not be capped, as WP:JOBTITLES makes clear. Dicklyon (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC) Just a note: as with everything here, this has been discussed before. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC) It's not clear why he withdrew the point when discussion for and against was about equal. Dicklyon (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC) Opened up same discussion at talkpage of Mike Pence. -- GoodDay (talk) 04:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC) This has been discussed and debated many times recently. Seems like forum shopping and maybe a misuse of an important talk page, as you mentioned at Dicklyon's page that you would bring this topic here because it would get the most views (and I see that Mike Pence's talk page is now being used for this purpose as well). Wasn't there a moratorium put on this question somewhere? Randy Kryn (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC) I can't remember if there was. But, it's been frustrating over these 2 or so years, trying to get the community to take notice of this topic. The bios of the US governors & lieutenant governors alone, are a total mess in incosistency. GoodDay (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC) Just work toward consistency with guidelines. If Randy doesn't notice, you'll be fine. Dicklyon (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC) No, upper case has prevailed or stayed because of no consensus many times recently, so there doesn't seem to be a current problem with the casing. And you really want to tie up the Donald Trump and Mike Pence talk pages with what would undoubtedly be another very long (and possibly wall of text filled) discussion? If so, and this turns into an RfC or something, please notify the many editors (far from just me) who have commented on all the recent debates on this subject, thanks. (and a "hello" to the Trump editors) Randy Kryn (talk) 04:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC) JOBTITLES and grammar rules seem clear - capitalise if it immediately precedes the name or the country, e.g. “President Trump” or “President of the United States”, and otherwise not, e.g. “The next president”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC) This is the wrong venue to seek a consensus to comply with MoS at this article & all the other bios of US presidents. As seen in the previous discussion here, it would be futile to seek a consensus to comply only at this article—too many editors put cross-article consistency before MoS compliance for that to succeed. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC) Checking the history of this article (and the other US Presidents bios), it's highly likely that capitalizing will continue. I won't object to this discussion being closed & collapsed. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC) I've opened up an Rfc at Wikipedia:Manual of Style. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Why is this article full-protected, if some of the compromised accounts are admins?

Just asking, because even full protection obviously doesn't prevent admin edits. I don't think that there is a higher protection level, but I'm still wondering why the article has such strong protection if it won't help. Or are we sure that no more admin accounts have been compromised? Diamond Blizzard talk 04:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

A lot more EC accounts than admin accounts. Pretty straightforward. Enigma^msg 06:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, if this is only EC-protected, there are a lot more editors able to revert vandalism. Bradv 06:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

See #Recent wave of image vandalism. The full is only temporary as we decide on a way to prevent this from happening again. It should go back to EC in just over seven hours. Anarchyte (talk | work) 06:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

It is now back to EC protection only. Everybody please continue to keep a close eye on this article. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

They're back. I locked it again, for 24 hours this time. NOTE: I will be away from my computer when the full protection expires, so somebody else please make a note to restore EC when it does. Or if someone wants to cut the full protection to something shorter than 24 hours or extend it to something longer, go ahead. No need to check with me about it, I'll probably be unreachable. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Why do not we full protect it longer term, say 2 weeks? The attacks are already going on for five days, is there any reason to think they stop in 24h?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, there is WP:NO-PREEMPT to consider. This is normally a heavily edited article; things come up all the time that people want to add to the article or changes they want to suggest. So my personal preference would be to lock it in smaller time frames, to kind of test the water regularly and see if EC has become tolerable yet. But that's just me and I am going to be offline for a few days, so I'm kind of irrelevant at this point. Do whatever you think is best or whatever people here agree on. (And we do have to consider the likelihood that the troll is reading these discussions and adjusting his strategy accordingly.) @Zzuuzz: you've borne the brunt of dealing with the troll, what is your opinion about the best way to use protection? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Personally speaking, I'm content with using full protection for a while to flush out more of the compromised admin accounts. With publicity in the media some copycats will also be tempted. I don't mind using full protection for short periods, but I do anticipate it will be regularly needed for a while. Let's review when the current protection expires. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

How about this for a solution? We write an edit filter that blocks any of the patterns that have been used to vandalise the article, unless it's a bureaucrat (see why in a minute). WP:BEANS notwithstanding, this is not difficult. The article then gets dropped back to ECP. If anyone wants to submit a good-faith edit that the filter blocks, they must file a request on the talk page and wait for consensus, whereupon a 'crat will add it. Anyone removing the filter without solid consensus gets level 1 desysopped. Any thoughts? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with what zzuuzz said. Might be good to force whoever they are to use more of their admin accounts (that is, if they have any more of course) and it also keeps the article more or less secure. If the vandalism doesn't stop, the media attention will probably keep coming back off and on. Probably best to keep it fully protected for a while. Let's review when the full protection expires again. As for Ritchie333's suggestion, that might be something to consider, but the article should be fully protected until we can decide. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

As a non-admin (but extended-confirmed) editor, I support an edit filter that would allow me to add constructive content. However, I suggest that we wait a couple of days for the news to die down before removing full-protection, to ensure that, once it is removed, there is not mass attempts to circumvent the edit filter and/or non-image vandalism. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I would support such an edit filter. Barring that, the article should be fully protected for at least a week, IMO, and people who want to make changes can make edit requests on the talk page. Enigma^msg 00:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The edit filter would presumably just look for addition/removal/changing of images, yes? ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 02:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

After thinking about it I have a suggestion: don't make the full protection for a definite known time. That basically just tells him when to make his next attack. Instead make the full protection indefinite. And somebody revert it to EC after some random, unannounced time like 17 hours 12 minutes, or two-and-a-fraction days, or three weeks and change. We should assume he is reading this discussion. Let's not give him so much information. MelanieN alt (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC) This would also make PC protection unnecessary since there would be no gap in coverage. Someone else would have to implement this, I can't. MelanieN alt (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

We've seen some stuff elsewhere today, and no doubt it's still hot in the press, so I'll implement this before protection expires today. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I support the indefinite full protection, hopefully returning to ECP sometime this year. We seem to be in a news lull right now anyhow, and a lot of admins watch this talk page, so I don't see this unduly hindering editing. Excluding the main page, this is arguably the highest-profile article on the site. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

re: Recent wave of image vandalism

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

---

This is worthy of inclusion in our coverage of how Wikipedia gets vandalized, and/or gets press coverage.

I would like to ask for the link to the place where we offer a detailed timeline of who vandalized what, what countermeasures we took, and so on. For instance, I see that several revisions have been deleted. CapnZapp (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, beyond what's visible in the history or in the press, there's no publicly available timeline. And we tend not to dwell on these things because it doesn't usually help. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with zzuuzz: the sooner this goes down the memory hole the better. For two reasons: WP:DENY and WP:BEANS. DENY because trolls like this get their jollies from the upset they cause and the notoriety; don't give it to them. And BEANS because publicity inspires copycats. MelanieN alt (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Protected edit request on 5 December 2018

tone of page as a whole needs tweaks to be more neutral as to convey facts without biased undertones 2606:A000:1121:421D:F902:4B6A:5C62:F9C2 (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

That isn't what edit requests are for. See Wikipedia:Edit requests. If you want to start a discussion, click "New section" at the top of this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Hatnote for /r/The_Donald

Add the following hatnote: "'The Donald' redirects here. For the Reddit community, see /r/The_Donald." Geolodus (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Let us see. An obvious solution would be {{redirect|The Donald}}, but it will also produce the note which refers to The Donald (disambiguation) (or to any other page) which we probably do not want. Does anybody know better solutions?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I got it. Will no now.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The code is {{redirect|The Donald|Reddit community| /r/The_Donald}}, but the article says not to change without getting consensus, so that we need to wait here and determine what consensus is.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

If the problem is that people are searching for "The Donald" to get to /r/The_Donald, it would make more sense to change The Donald into a disambiguation page. Bradv 🍁 15:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm removing the edit request template per the instructions for edit requests (it "might be controversial"). Discussion should continue and if it reaches consensus another edit request could be submitted—although there would probably be an admin around who can make the change without the formality of an edit request. I'm also changing the heading to reflect the question being discussed.
I'm inclined to agree with Bradv. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, an extra hatnote would be overkill here. I would instead suggest redirecting The Donald to the article about the reddit forum. People who did follow the redirect while looking for the Donald person rather than the Donald forum would be just a click away from being satisfied. Now supporting a small dab page, see below. — JFG ^talk 01:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I have never used Reddit and don't intend to, but I have associated "The Donald" with Donald Trump for decades. Just one data point, but I don't see myself as freakishly atypical. Suggest waiting until I and other old guys are dead. I'll let you know when. (In case you missed it, I also oppose a hatnote.) ―Mandruss ☎ 02:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

"I have never used Reddit and don't intend to, but I have associated "The Donald" with Donald Trump for decades." How is your personal opinion relevant to this discussion? Geolodus (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

it may not be but it is true that "The Donald" has been associated with Trump for decades עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

 Note: This redirect has been the topic of two previous discussions:

1. The first at the talk page of the redirect, in mid 2017, seen here. (@Yoshiman6464, JFG, and Molandfreak: participated in that discussion). That discussion resulted in changing the redirect from this page to the reddit page
2. The second was on this talk page in September 2017, seen here. (In addition to one of the editors of the previous discussions, @Emir of Wikipedia, MelanieN, Purplebackpack89, Awilley, Champion, and NoMoreHeroes: participated). That discussion resulted in changing the redirect back to this page.

I don't think there should be a hatnote here, so I Oppose this, but instead I suggest that "The Donald" redirect to Donald Trump (disambiguation), which already includes a link to the reddit page. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Prior discussions show clear consensus that the reddit forum should not be given priority over Trump's longstanding nickname which itself inspired the forum's name. On the other hand, readers looking for the forum are left hanging when redirected here, especially as the forum's spelling is not natural. As suggested by Bradv, the most accommodating solution would be a small dab page listing just "The Donald" as the nickname and "/r/The_Donald" as the forum. — JFG ^talk 07:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I still support that. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

According to this 2013 remark and this 2015 discussion, there is yet another meaning to include in a dab page: "The Donald" can refer to the hereditary chief of Clan Donald, currently Godfrey Macdonald, 8th Baron Macdonald. — JFG ^talk 07:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Wasn't there a hamburger in the 1980s called "The Donald"?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Probably. — JFG ^talk 11:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

References

There is certainly no need to clutter up this article with a separate hatnote for the reddit page. And we don't need a whole separate DAB page just for "The Donald". If someone types in The Donald they get redirected here, where our existing hatnote directs people to the DAB page. There is a link there to the reddit page. That one extra click, for the few people who might actually be looking for a page about the reddit forum instead of the page about Donald Trump, is not a killer IMO. The suggested alternative - redirecting The Donald to the DAB page - adds that extra click for the far greater number of people who were looking for the person. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I support that, too. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I wouldn't assume that a "far greater number of people" look for Donald Trump when typing "The Donald"; in fact I would suspect more people would be using this unnatural search term specifically to reach the forum, whose non-standard spelling is awkward to type. People looking for Trump would more likely type "Trump" or just "Donald T…" Either way, we can't measure what people are looking for, so a The Donald dab page with 3 entries seems to me the most appropriate solution. — JFG ^talk 02:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

And so The Donald would redirect to The Donald (disambiguation)? Or would The Donald itself be the DAB page? And what would happen at Donald Trump (disambiguation) - would it list all three The Donald meanings, or would it tell people to click over to another page to see the The Donald DABs? I guess I really don't care how these DABs are untangled, as long as we don't wind up with a hat note at this page; I strongly oppose that. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, I would suggest using The Donald as a small disambiguation page, with two or three entries specifically for "The Donald". There could also be a link from there to Donald Trump (disambiguation), which could optionally also show either all three meanings (redundantly), or a link back to The Donald. I know it means two separate and overlapping disambiguation pages, but it's preferable to adding another hatnote on this page, and it successfully resolves the issue that began this thread. And I wouldn't touch The Donald (disambiguation) -- create that requires a hatnote here, which defeats the whole purpose. Bradv🍁 03:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:MALPLACED, one wouldn't redirect The Donald to The Donald (disambiguation). I'm in agreement with JFG and Bradv that a small dab at The Donald would be most appropriate. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Given rough consensus above, I have created a dab page at The Donald. No action needed on this article. — JFG ^talk 10:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump (disambiguation) already points to the Reddit forum in the "See also" section. Nothing else to add there. — JFG ^talk 10:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Economic Accomplishments

• Record Employment for 12th Time Under Trump (according to the Department of Labor Statistics) .The number of employed Americans has never been higher. The 156,562,000 Americans employed in October is the twefth record set under President Donald Trump.
• In October, the number of employed men age 20 and up -- 80,405,000 -- set the 12th record since Trump took office; and likewise, for the 12th time, the number of employed women age 20 and up set a record, reaching 70,909,000 in October.
• The unemployment rate held at 3.7 percent, the same as September, which is the lowest it's been in decades -- since the end of 1969. And the Hispanic unemployment rate, 4.4 percent, has never been lower.
• The unemployment rate for African-Americans, 6.2 percent, remained near the all-time low of 5.9 percent set in May.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TeamBlackSheepTango (talk • contribs) 03:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

FYI: “The number of employed Americans has never been higher” is true most of the time in history, and it’s been repeatedly true since September 2014. So it’s not a false statement, it’s just pretty much useless. See: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CE16OV. Cheers. soibangla (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

TeamBlackSheepTango doesn't seem to be proposing any improvement to the article, but rather appears to be using this article talk page as a forum. I recommend this thread be archived immediately. Also, I've refactored the original post slightly to eliminate the pointless reference and "listify" the so-called "accomplishments" quoted. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@TeamBlackSheepTango:, if you want those statements put in the article you'll need to provide a reliable source that shows that they are correct and related to Trump's policy. If that was not your intentions this thread will likely be closed per WP:NOTFORUM. funplussmart (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Funplussmart no, they only need show WEIGHT making mention DUE. Though actual language and location in article would be good too. There is some praises for conservative judges, tax breaks, stock market rally, N Korea talks, trade and other treaties reworked.... which where has WEIGHT to be DUE, depends. Though I would suggest taking this to the Presidency article instead... Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Markbassett, agreed. funplussmart (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

This article has unbelievable amounts of bias and clearly does not meet wikipedia standards

Concerns about RS belong at WP:RSN O3000 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1. The sources are clearly biased. Sources like The New Yorker, Slate, Vox are heavily biased. These sources are not in many other president pages; why does Donald Trump's page have so many of them? The equivalent is like putting Breitbart into Obama's page; these sources have no place in neutral discussion. 2. Most of the sections are intentionally structured to portray negative sentiment. Some examples: - For the Wealth section, instead of mentioning that he is an extremely wealthy individual and the richest president in history, it starts off with: "Trump is the beneficiary of several trust funds set up by his father and paternal grandmother beginning in 1949." Why start this section with such a specific fact? - For the Economy and Trade section, instead of mentioning that the economy is doing well, it starts off by talking about the Trump tax cuts and intentionally portraying them as negative - the last sentence reads: "The bill is estimated to increase deficits by $1.5 trillion over 10 years." Tax cuts by their very nature increase deficits. This sentence is totally unnecessary; the equivalent is adding a blurb following a tax hike bill saying that "The bill is estimated to reduce personal income for the middle class by $1.5 trillion over 10 years". 3. There is no equivalency. There is absolutely no mention of Hillary Clinton calling Trump voters "deplorables", a moment that may have had a huge impact on the election, yet literally every one of Trump's negative statements are mentioned, many of which had no impact on the election whatsoever. Many of Trump's quotes are being taken out of context and being intentionally made misleading - "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. ... They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists, and some, I assume, are good people." - this quote could easily have been added into a context of him being against illegal immigration, yet it is put into a section talking about his apparent racism. The entire section reads far too factual, as if it is a known fact that he is a racist. "but accepted by his supporters either as a rejection of political correctness[309][310] or because they harbor similar racial sentiments." (this is false - many Trump supporters don't think he is racist period!) I find it laughable how something as incredible as Donald Trump getting elected - something that absolutely no one saw coming, a businessman with no political experience whatsoever getting elected to the United State's highest office - gets a mere 3 sentences. This was a historical upset. NYT gave Clinton >95% chance to win the election. But instead it is brushed aside as if it could have happened, even though it was a shock to many. Frankly, wikipedia should be ashamed by what they have done here. I don't deny that Trump is a tremendously polarizing person and that he has done many awful things, but Wikipedia, a website that bills itself as being an online encyclopedia, should seek to portray things as neutrally as possible. A few paragraphs, maybe a 1/4 of the page talking about his negative aspects and how polarizing he is is enough. But when literally the entire page reads as a hit piece, starting with the intro...that's gone too far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmu008 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC) 1. Those sources are clearly reliable. Those who doubt the reliability of them are biased. They are used in plenty of other articles. Breitbart is almost never a reliable source. 2. Most of the sections are intentionally structured to portray realistic assessment. 3. Well, now Poe's law applies to this Onion piece. I find it laughable how someone who doesn't know how the community determines reliable sourcing comes along and brushes aside years worth of social contracts as if they never happened. Frankly, you should be ashamed of what you've posted here. I don't deny that your strong feelings on the subject, but our neutrality does not obligate us to create artificial balance. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict) 1. Those sources are all valid and neutral. We will not be sourcing this article with Breitbart and Infowars. 2. His wealth began with his inheritance. That's the way the section should start. 3. Hillary calling his supporters "deplorables" does not belong in this article, due to the article's substantial length and indirect connection to Trump. It's more affiliated with Hillary and Trump's 2016 campaigns, and can be found on those pages. Trump's comments about Mexicans are very relevant to him. 4. Why would the nature of his upset win require more than three sentences? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC) User:Ian.thomson I would not lean on RSN list of ad hoc opinions with no criteria and no record of determination, and too broad a brush. And proclaiming sources here as "neutral" seems factually false and also not desirable. It's just not a WP goal to canonize some publishers nor "portray realistic assessment" and pick someone "neutral" -- the WP:NPOV policy is "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." All POVs are to be shown in proportion to their prominence, without any judging or excluding of "neutral" or "correct" or "false". That there is widespread denouncement of coverage of Trump is as simple a fact as that there is widespread denouncement of Trump. Also -- if the concern is that the article is drawing heavily from criticism pieces in lesser publications, then that may also fail WP:WEIGHT or WP:BESTSOURCES. If this this guy's POV is not among the content of the article then ... that's likely a POV failure. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed addition to paragraph 3 of lede (birther mention)

I say we add one sentence about the birhter thing. It is an important part of Trump's public image, has received infinite press coverage, and was the issue that got Trump on the radar of Republican politics.

So my proposed version: "Trump first drew attention as a figure in Republican politics in 2011, when, while on a media tour in which he publicly considered a run for the presidency, he repeatedly alleged that then-President Barack Obama was born in Kenya and thus ineligible to be president." then we'd continue with "After declining to run in 2012, Trump entered the 2016 presidential race as a Republican and defeated sixteen opponents in the primaries . . ." etc.

What do you guys think? I'm open to modifying my language but the birther stuff should be in the lede, imo. I think we should also mention conspiracy theories in the lede at some point. GergisBaki (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

A consensus to omit this from the lead was reached a mere 17 days ago. See #Current consensus item 33 and the discussion linked therein. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Protection

How come it took them so long to add full protection to this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypernova971 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It is only full protected due to an on-going issue, which the above sections cover. It will return to ECP eventually. -- ferret (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I am glad it is fully protected I hope they keep it protected until he leaves office because I think the full protection is a good idea and should have happened back in 2016 Abote2 (talk) 11:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Everything needs to be done differently for Trump. Normal rules do not apply. Please keep the article fully protected. If those in charge can listen. Eschoryii (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Many experienced editors involved with this article, past or present, feel that there are already too many impediments to editing here, with the editing restrictions. Requiring an admin for every edit? Throwing away WP:BOLD? Not going to happen. If existing policies and the editing restrictions are enforced, there is no need for long-term full protection here, and that is borne out by the past three years of the article's history (for which you weren't present). ―Mandruss ☎ 00:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

As Ferret said: the full protection is TEMPORARY to deal with a severe vandalism problem. There is absolutely no intention to full-protect the article permanently. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank goodness. I hope you guys can resolve the issue and step it down soon. Thanks for the work addressing it. A2soup (talk) 09:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Motion to lift full protection, return to ECP

It's been ten days since full protection was applied, which is starting to harm editors' capacity to update the contents. There will always be vandalism; the myriad watchful eyes on this article can likely deal with it in a timely manner. Unless admins can demonstrate a compelling and current reason to keep the article locked, I would request an immediate return to longstanding WP:ECP protection. @Anarchyte, Awilley, Bellezzasolo, Bradv, DannyS712, Enigmaman, Favonian, GreenC, Mandruss, MelanieN, MrX, MusikAnimal, Power~enwiki, Ritchie333, TheSandDoctor, Winged Blades of Godric, Ymblanter, and Zzuuzz: what's your take? Do we have a handle on compromised accounts yet? — JFG ^talk 13:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Concur - Admins just need to keep an eye on the article and quickly take care of blocking any compromised accounts. - MrX 🖋 13:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

A quick post at AIV (after a first instance if EC vandalism) could also help if no admins are around here. ~Awilley (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• I suggest one of us replaces the full protection by ex protection within a couple of days without announcing it here, to minimize the risks.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Why? Do you think compromised accounts are watching the talk page, but not the actual article? Trying to be sneaky about restoring ECP is a flawed tactic. Just watch the page and block the offenders like we always do. There must be at least 100 admins watching this article.- MrX 🖋 13:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Lift protection - There have not been any new flare ups that I am aware of and if a new one starts it is easy enough to restore the full lock. PackMecEng (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• I don't buy the 'there will always be vandalism argument', or 'it will be dealt with', especially when I've had to personally deal with at least four of the vandals myself and it got plastered all over the Internet. There is currently an extraordinary risk. Just to provide a data point, four accounts were compromised three days ago, and you can guarantee they'll have vandalised this article if they could have. I just want to make clear that any other admin can change the protection as they see fit at any time. Personally, I'd have preferred to wait a few more days as I consider the vandalism to be currently continuing. If there is a different consensus so be it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Because of the situation at hand I still think the admins current plan of action is the best option. In the interm just use edit requests procedure to update the article. In addition to all the admins watching this page plus the admins that watch this I doubt edit requests for this article would go unattended for long periods of time in the interm. Plus if any IPs or other editors try to use the edit request template for joke requests, blank requests, etc. other editors can swiftly close them so the admins only have to focus on the requests that would keep the article up to date until it can go back to ECP. Maybe in cases like this in the future as a last resort we could look into seeing if an article like this could be template protected so template editors could edit it. Similar to the proposal that of where temporarily only interface admins could edit the Main Page. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 14:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually now that I think about it and after I saw the section above (where some mentioned keeping this on full protection indefinitely which I'm against) this most recent situation reminded me of the retired pending changes protection level 2. To be honest here this article would be perfect to bring back PC Level 2 even if this is the only article it is used on. If this article has both ECP + PC Level 2 then it would still allow EC editors to make changes however no edits would "go live" until a reviewer or admin accepts them. This way readers who are not logged in only see the last accepted version of this page and it should also help with assistants like Siri, Google Assistant, etc. to keep the vandals work from appearing there (this is assuming they go based on the last accepted versions of pending protected pages). Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 15:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

That is a brilliant idea, except that PC2 would not have stopped what happened on Thanksgiving. (Then again, now that I think about it, neither does full protection.) ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't think anything could have prepared en~Wiki for what happened at Thanksgiving honestly lol. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 15:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Lift protection and bringing back PC2 for this could be an interesting idea. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 15:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

For the love of God, please no Pending Changes protection. ECP protects against fly-by-night vandals, and the 1RR and Consensus Required restrictions are hard enough to administer. PC2 would only make maintenance more difficult by mandating extra scrutiny that is de facto already in place. — JFG ^talk 23:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think temporary PC2 protection with ECP will make maintenance more difficult all it will do is provide an extra layer in the event a compromised account vandalizes the page it keeps their handywork from being seen by IP readers and virtual assistants. In most cases extended confirmed editors that regularly edit this page most likely have it on their watchlist and look at all edits to ensure compliance with the things you mentioned. It is probably safe to say a decent amount of them are also reviewers. I highly doubt other reviewers that don't edit this page regularly would review the edits on this page if they are not comfortable editing articles under ArbCom sanctions. They would most likely leave it in the review queue until a more experienced editor can review this article except in the case of clear, obvious vandalism. I actually support the admins here and I'm interested to see how their plan works out. However at this time I don't support lowering the protection back to ECP alone with everything that has happened. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 07:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Lift Trump is the perfect honey trap to flush out compromised admin accounts so either way it's good. -- GreenC 15:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@GreenC: I have to admit then when I read this, I burst out laughing. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: I hope we are not colluding, but anyway it is not disallowed. -- GreenC 20:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• File with lifting per OP. ~Awilley (talk)
• Oppose unprotecting - there are no urgent changes to be made to this article, and until we find a solution to the compromised accounts problem, the vandalism will very likely continue. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the compromised accounts issue will take a bit longer to sort out here and the article shouldn't stay fully protected until that problem is sorted. However I'm opposed to reducing protection at this critical time especially when we are still in the news. I think for this article only resurrecting PC2 and applying ECP+PC2 protection would be a good alternative solution. IMO this is what PC2 was technically designed for to be the middle ground between ECP and FP and it could help us in two areas. Keep vandals work from appearing to readers who are not logged in and in theory should keep their work away from Siri, Google Assistant, etc. If someone vandalizes the article while it has ECP+PC2 protection they can be reported and dealt with by admins. This also allows good EC users to continue to contribute to the article just as they always have before. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 15:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The short term solution is to block on sight and revert. The long term solution is being worked on by WMF, as far as I know.- MrX 🖋 16:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Lift I don't think its still needed --DannyS712 (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I have been thinking about unilaterally lifting the full protection and restoring the EC protection, sometime soon. But we should not decide when to do that via a talk page discussion, because I think we can be sure that the troll watches these discussions; no point in telling him when he can resume his attacks. (It's always possible that he has lost interest and taken his mischief elsewhere, but I wouldn't count on it. Zzuuzz's recent experience suggests the opposite.) It has been understood all along that the full protection is temporary and that EC protection will be restored eventually. This is an article that needs to be accessible to responsible editors. But I think the timing of that restoration should not be a matter of public discussion. Any admin can do it, without needing permission or discussion. There are several of us who have been involved in these decisions, but any admin could also take the action unilaterally, whenever they think the time is ripe. It might be a good idea to privately alert those of us who have been most deeply involved (such as Zzuuzz and myself) that you are doing it. The above is basically a long version of what Ymblanter said. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Would they not see the protection change on their watch list or perhaps see other people editing the article. I am not sure getting community input on the subject is a bad thing. PackMecEng (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I could be wrong but I think what the admins are trying to do here is not give the troll a lot of leeway here. Like I mentioned I support them randomly switching protection back unannounced its a good tactic. Some trolls are dedicated and will watch talk pages or even the protection icon on the main page for the date the protection goes away and will plan accordingly. WP:VG actually had a situation where this happened earlier this year where trolls planned an attack because they knew when protection on a certain page would end. Switching the protection at a random, unannounced time puts more work on said troll in that they would have to keep up with this page almost 24/7 to perform instant vandalism to the page and hopefully they give up. So I can see the reasoning as to why MelanieN and the others are doing this. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 16:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Eh if I were a troll I would just edit as normal on my main account until I see the protection change on my watch list and then get to work. This isn't 3D space chess, when it changes they will see it and do what they do. Could it delay it a few hours? Sure probably, does that really matter though? PackMecEng (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

RE: does that really matter though? Please see the "mentioned by media organizations" section above. Even though the images were reverted and revdel'ed within minutes, the vandalism propagated on the internet through Google and Siri. It was seen by many people and resulted in a lot of media reporting that gave Wikipedia a black eye. Yes, it really matters. It is important to prevent this from happening again if we possibly can. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Does that really matter, was in reference to when the protection ends... Not if the vandalism matters. Of course vandalism matters, my argument above is it not making a difference when that ends. Since when it ends has no effect on if vandalism happens. Hope that clears it up for you. PackMecEng (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Lift if they can read a talk page, they can read a protection log. No need to do it immediately, but this should be lift-able this week, unless an admin or somebody from the WMF is going to invoke WP:BEANS and claim private information that justifies not lifting it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose unprotection I consider the compromised accounts 'crisis' to be ongoing, and as mentioned in the past, I do not see why people cannot use the edit-protected request format. Given the high profile nature of this page, I'd prefer changes get consensus before the edit is made. Enigma^msg 21:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Some of this strategizing seems like pointless overthink. The easiest and most reliable way to see if protection is still in place? Try an edit. No matter what anybody does, a dedicated vandal can simply try an edit once a day with their morning coffee. Either it works or it doesn't; no need to look at this page, protection log, or watchlist. It isn't like we're going to lift protection for a 5-minute window and they need to know when that will be—once opened, the door tends to stay open for some time. If they're reading this page it's because they enjoy the attention, not because they seek intel.
  But otherwise, I don't know what to do here—that's why admins get the big bucks. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Wait a bit longer - as long as there's still an issue with compromised accounts, we do not need such a highly trafficked page being opened up for attack. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral, but it'd be good if this discussion could also include the alternative infobox. Anarchyte (talk | work) 06:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Just my opinion but with everything that has been going on lately I would recommend placing the alternate infobox under template protection for the time being. If there is something that needs to be updated to the alternate infobox the edit request process would be sufficient. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 07:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not all that sure that the alternate infobox is going to prevent our problem. I have been looking into a possible better solution. Sorry to be so vague. More info later. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Page Protection Raise

Conversation started by sock – Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think this article needs full protection as it has had a history of vandalism from extended confirmed users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iplayminecraft512 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC) I disagree as some Extended Confirmed Users help add more info to the article. I also disagree as some Extended Confirmed Users revert Vandalism. Emperor Anzong of Song or The Huangdi of Song China (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC) I think it needs full protection as well Abote2 (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Suggested additions to head

-"Trump's foreign policy has been described as unilateralist and interventionist, drawing the United States closer to Saudi Arabia and Israel."

-"Trump repealed environmental protections and/or regulations intended to address anthropogenic climate change such as the Clean Power Plan and withdrew from the Paris Agreement on climate change mitigation."

-Add Michael Cohen's and federal prosecutors allegation that Trump committed multiple felonies.

This is partially taken from Presidency of Donald Trump, but I felt they should be added here. ZiplineWhy (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. About the first two: Before we can add these things to the lead section they have to be spelled out in the article, with sources. Are they? About the last: I noticed that you added the claim about him committing felonies to the Presidency article lead, but I removed it. Cohen did not say that in those words, and the federal prosecutors quoted in your source are nowhere near strong enough evidence to accuse a person, in his biography, of committing felonies. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

User:ZiplineWhy Not here. These seem too remote for BLP. The BLP lead identifies highlight major events of life, so withdrawal from Paris Agreement is fine and already there, but the rest is non-events getting into too long and vague narration. Feels a bit WP:OFFTOPIC for here, would be better suited to Presidency article. p.s. I see Rep. Lieu allege two felonies for the hush money, and Cohens lawyer Lanny Davis also said so for the same events. Should say “two” wherever for that. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm completely new here but I decided to take a look because my coworker told me there are all these Trump defenders trying to keep all the felony news stuff out of the article and it's lead section. SUrprisngly he was right. The presidency is Trump's most significant event in his life, and the current latest news about his possible felonies and impeachment are an important counter-weight. The article right now, gives the most credence to the idea that Mueller is on a "witch hunt." I don't pretend to understand how Wikipedia policy works, but surely we are commiting a journalistic malpractice here. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

"Felony news stuff" and crystal-balling about possible impeachment isn't going to make it. Stick to well-sourced facts and maybe there's a chance of representing what's going on. You'll still have to fight the defenders who believe Mueller is on a witch hunt, but at least there might be a chance. Dicklyon (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

"Prosecutors Say Trump Directed Illegal Payments During Campaign" [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/07/nyregion/michael-cohen-sentence.html

] PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 December 2018

Add this to page to match other presidential pages

עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, I do see this kind of navbox at the bottom of other presidential articles. It seems kind of worthless to me but apparently it is the practice here. Does someone want to add it? Or agree to add it once the normal EC protection is restored? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken that was one of the things removed because we kept running into the limit for template space or something. Each time we did, it broke one or two of the last templates in the article, and there was a reluctance to use templates for new citations because it would aggravate the problem. Things are much improved now that we don't have to worry about such things. Plus, there's currently a discussion at Village Pump about whether we need those boxes anywhere. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

FWIW I feel these succession boxes are mostly useless. The presidential line of succession is already in the main infobox, and the previous nominee of the Republican party is readily available when viewing the article about the primaries. That person is also unrelated to Trump, except that he made a fierce speech against him. As for the President being first in diplomatic order, that is a factoid true of any U.S. President, hence malplaced at the Trump article. — JFG ^talk 02:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I only edit requested it here because of the edit restrictions now that that has been lifted I'm going to add it in there is no reason he shouldn't have one if all presidents and most politicians have one if there ends up being consensus to remove all succession boxes from all pages then it can be removed עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

And I'm going to revert you because the question is currently 2-to-1 for omit (MelanieN is straddling the fence). Sorry. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss, is there really a technical problem with including it? We do keep being reminded how massive this article is. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: A technical problem? Perhaps not at this time. I don't know of a way to determine how close we are to the template space limit until we exceed it. I'm weighing the total upside against the total downside, the downside includes more than the immediate possible technical issue, and the scale is tipping slightly in the omit direction for me. As JFG said, I feel these succession boxes are mostly useless. That it's included in other articles weighs very little for me, absent a community-level discussion and consensus that it should be included in all presidents' articles. To my mind, that kind of consistency argument kills organic evolution of the encyclopedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to come down on the side of "leave it out". IMO it adds nothing to the article, and the article has survived just fine without it for nearly two years. At least let's wait until there is some kind of resolution of the question elsewhere. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

that's not true it was unilaterally deleted in march 2018 and why should this be the only presidents page to not have it עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the others that should be left out of this article, and possibly other president articles. It doesn't add much of value and it's purpose is unclear.- MrX 🖋 14:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

so when removal is decided about all succession boxes it should be removed before that happens it should be on this page consistent with like pages עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, so we've done without it for nine months. Until now, nobody missed it. And it is under debate elsewhere whether such sections contribute any value. I understand your reasoning and you are clearly passionate about this, but we work by consensus, and so far you don't seem to have convinced anyone to add it at this time. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The most recent prior discussions are here and here, and Galobtter's big-fix edit is here. While the {{Navboxes}} template that Galobtter removed is back in the article now, it contains a lot less than he removed, so we probably don't have a pressing technical problem at this time.
Re the consistency argument, not many presidents' articles have file sizes 60% larger than the average from Nixon to Obama, 110% larger than FDR (ie more than double), and 91% larger than Lincoln. This is another great example of why blind and simplistic consistency arguments should generally be avoided. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

still a bs argument as consensus was never gotten to remove the succession box it was removed unilaterally so until someone gets consensus from more than 5 users to remove it it should be put back in and this page is less than 10% bigger than obamas עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

George Bush funeral

It should be noted that every living president was cordial to Trump at Bush funeral except for the Clintons. They wouldn't make eye contact or shake hands. 108.200.234.93 (talk) 08:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Noted. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Runs into WP:WEIGHT issues. And honestly? Trump isn't really deserving of such cordiality, so I can't blame the Clintons for ignoring him. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

While rude it is not noteworthy and I do not see it having a place in any article at the moment. PackMecEng (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

"Not gonna do it." [22] O3000 (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Rudely refusing to shake hands? Gosh, is my eyesight failing me?? Gandydancer (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• Sauce? "I saw it" doesn't count. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Sources are easy.[23][24] But again I do not think it is particularly noteworthy from any angle. PackMecEng (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• Seems a relatively small trivia du jour. Wait a couple days and see if any further WEIGHT develops. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

  Surely you jest. WP:WEIGHT has its limits, and I would vigorously oppose such content even if the entire effing media world talked about nothing but this for weeks. I'm astounded anybody took the time to write a serious response here. Anyway, Trump was a passive actor here, so this is the wrong article. Bill Clinton wouldn't make eye contact or shake hands, AND Hillary Clinton wouldn't make eye contact or shake hands. If Wikipedia claims to be neutral this MUST BE REPORTED!! </sarcasm> ―Mandruss ☎ 00:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

IMO none of this NOTNEWS gossip (of which there is a lot more: gasp! He and Melania didn't recite the creed or sing the hymns![25][26] ) belongs in this biography article anywhere on Wikipedia. Like the Doc said. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

User:MelanieN, User:Mandruss - oh, I’m fairly serious about ‘wait a few days and see what WEIGHT’ being my common response whenever yet another flap du jour occurs, because they do occur, and I can either argue my view of trivial NOTDIARY with editors who proclaim its important and will affect things or I can point at TOOSOON and WEIGHT and letting events show which it is, which seems more polite a response and policy, plus NOTNEWS used for the ‘does not need to be in WP the same day’, and ‘this seems more for the Presidency article than his BLP’. (But events have surprised me before ... for example, the birthright removal mention seemed a onetime oops or just him trolling the opposition, but the topic persisted.) So while I think this is trivia, I’m serious about the policy being “we’ll see” even if that sounds link my Mums euphemism for no. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

If any of this turned into a HUGE issue and was still being talked about by multiple sources in a week, I agree I would have to rethink my opinion. IMO that isn't going to happen, but I've been wrong before. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm I don't think any of this belongs anywhere on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
• If we had an entire article dedicated to the George W. Bush funeral alone and nothing else, this might warrant a sentence somewhere in it; but it's extremely WP:UNDUE for his personal article. Where would we even put it? --Aquillion (talk) 08:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

  Death and state funeral of George H. W. Bush does exist. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the user above, what is trying to be added to this page does not serve any purpose to the page itself. Talking about how Trump was seen at someone else's funeral is something that should be on a personal page on its own. The Clintons refusing to shake hands and refuse eye contact could only be something that the media is trying to blow up, it is hard to look at these issues especially when it has been proven that different media sources portray Trump in differnt ways. I am sure we will be hearing more about this as a story so I agree with the statemtn above that we should wait on it before any other developments. ((User:Jacklg)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakelog1234 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Let's not engage in Kremlinology here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Possible Trump - Khashoggi connection?

FWIW - not sure - but is an apparent connection between Donald Trump and a Khashoggi - relevant to the article? - or not? - seems Donald Trump bought a Super Yacht, originally owned by Adnan Khashoggi, uncle of Jamal Khashoggi, in the 1980s - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Interesting tidbit but not sure there is a place for it at the moment. PackMecEng (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

This is known as original research. Interesting, but we can't even start to consider it without a reputable publisher making the connection first. R2 (bleep) 19:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Media Articles

On the "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:" part at the top, the cracked.com link is broken. I am unsure on how to fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.116.189.95 (talk) 00:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Link  Fixed; changed to archive Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 December 2018

This article is not balanced. It carries much of the concerns expressed by the democratic party and mainstream left leaning media and does not include various accomplishments of his since being in office. I am requesting that this article be noted as biased, with more information needed such as Executive Orders he has passed, paychecks he has donated to various causes, legislation he has helped to get completed, tax breaks he was instrumental in helping to get passed, judges he nominated for the Supreme Court, and how he is perceived by the Republican party and his voters (which would contain both good and bad). Very disappointed in this page at this time. Bannij (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to take a look at List of executive actions by Donald Trump, which is linked from this article. General Ization ^Talk 17:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Marking this as answered as you'd need a consensus for this and your edit request is not very specific. Please also see WP:NPOV. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Seeking some consensus to add this quote

Hoping to preclude any conflicts, I think this (or a version thereof) should be included on the page, and am seeking support for that. Opinions?

In sentencing the president’s former fixer, federal judge William H. Pauley III said in open court that Trump had directed his then-lawyer to commit a federal felony. This was in some respects a formality, a confirmation of a conclusion that prosecutors and the United States Probation Office had reached last week. But while it might have been a formality, it was important. No one in that courtroom, including the judge, disagreed that Trump directed Cohen to commit crimes.

— Renato Mariotti, "Did Trump Just Move a Step Closer to Unindicted Co-conspirator?", Politico (December 12, 2018)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindenfall (talk • contribs) 22:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

That would be overkill. We already say Cohen testified that he had made the illicit payments at the direction of a candidate for federal office - a reference to Trump and Cohen said that he had made the false statements on behalf of Trump, who was identified as "Individual-1" in the court documents and In their sentencing memo, prosecutors said that Cohen had paid the women for their silence "with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election" and that "he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1”. That’s plenty for this biography. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Yup, unnecessary per Melanie. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I had not noticed the "Individual-1" references the other day, relegated to a sub-sub-section: 'underkill', as it were. Considering the historical significance of the matter, I would think it prudent to more prominently feature this outcome, perhaps by reference in the lead paragraphs, whatever may lay ahead for this president. Lindenfall (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

We do not yet know the "historical significance" of this. The quote not neutral. O3000 (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

WP should present in proportion to WEIGHT, and this does not currently have much WEIGHT. Whether or not it will be noted later is WP:CRYSTAL speculation not mattering to what coverage is now. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)