Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 163

Archive 160

Archive 161

Archive 162

Archive 163

Archive 164

Archive 165

→

Archive 170

American Academy

Trump has proposed a tuition-free online "American Academy" to be funded by taxing university endowments (apparently to be started if he gets elected president). I think this should be briefly mentioned. See https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/11/donald-trump-wants-government-fund-another-trump-university, https://www.newsweek.com/heres-what-donald-trump-plans-teach-his-new-free-university-1840446, https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/problems-donald-trumps-american-academy-plan-rcna123332 Kdammers (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

It is getting responses among academics: "A Free, Online National University Is Trump’s Latest Higher-Ed Idea. Here’s What Experts Think"= https://www.chronicle.com/article/a-free-online-national-university-is-trumps-latest-higher-ed-idea-heres-what-experts-think?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=campaign_8193728_nl_Academe-Today_date_20231103&cid=at (chronicle.com) Kdammers (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Why do we need this? He has said a lot of things. Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't belong here, it can go in Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign, maybe. Zaathras (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Another brilliant — 'though a tad communist-sounding? - idea for his Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign#Platform, to complement the shooting of shoplifters and the centralization of government power under his authority. Take the billions and billions of dollars that we will collect by taxing, fining, and suing excessively large private university endowments and then we will use that money to endow a new institution called the American Academy. Will the academy offer "an entire universe of the highest-quality educational content covering the full spectrum of human knowledge and skills", presented in PragerU videos the way they offer highest-quality educational content to students in Florida? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 19:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC).

The Trump campaign shared its plans with Politico. Academy graduates would "use their credentials to apply for jobs with the U.S. government and federal contractors". Yay? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 20:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The irony being the right giving the people something for nothing Anonymous8206 (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Given Trump's track record of involvement in "educational institutions" I find it highly likely that people attending this proposed American Academy would receive nothing of any actual value. Not to mention that the "wokeness" that Trump says is ruining the educational system in many cases is actually the accepted consensus of the best information in a discipline. The whole project reeks of scams and indoctrination. User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Healthcare Mandate

I think the phrase “after the Supreme Court found it to be unconstitutional” should be added after the statement that Trump rescinded the healthcare mandate to be more informative. 12.74.54.42 (talk) 13:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

That's not the case. Do you have a reliable source for the text you want to add? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Consensus #50 discrepancy

Re: [1][2]

Article is not faithful to #50 as to the links. Needs correction. My suggestion is to remove the first three links from #50. Comments? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with your edit summaries, and with removal. Those were definitely MOS:EGGs. Per MOS:LINK, they probably shouldn't be linked even in their non-EGG forms—we're generally not supposed to link [c]ommon occupations (e.g., accountant, politician, actor). Cessaune [talk] 23:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree. The links weren't mentioned in the discussions that led to consensus #50, and they're eggy and common occupations that shouldn't be linked. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

That's good news. If you're sure the links weren't mentioned (I've been too lazy to check), then the item was incorrect from the start and we don't need a consensus to correct it (or a link to this discussion). Raise your right hand and repeat after me. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

At the time of the drafting of consensus item #50, the links were present. Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Cessaune [talk] 02:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

That makes it a bit stickier from a process standpoint, but I'm inclined to say the links should have been incorporated into the discussions if the intent was to keep them. I wouldn't necessarily say that in a different situation – links are often omitted from discussion if the discussion isn't about links – but I'll make an exception for such an obvious case. I can't believe "we" ever allowed those EGGs in the first sentence, but apparently "we" didn't used to care so much about EGGs. The editor mix has changed. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I think a four-person consensus is enough to remove anyway, but I don't like that logic. Especially consdering how big that RfC was. There were tons of editor eyes on the issue, and I don't think anyone objected to the links. No objection = no issue = consensus to include. Cessaune [talk] 12:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Like I said, the discussions weren't about links. If an editor had brought up links, they would have been dinged as off topic and expanding the scope of the discussion. Either that, or just ignored. But I'll go with I think a four-person consensus is enough to remove anyway, and I'll give it another day or two before acting on it (there's no hurry). I'm not clear; do you think the item should link to this thread? ―Mandruss ☎ 13:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

eyes on the issue — the links were not an issue in the first RfC, a prime example of how not to do RfCs. 10 options in green, with blue highlighting the issues — "tell[ing] the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is" (MOS:FIRST) — i.e., what is he (media personality/businessman/real estate developer/television personality and in which order) and do we say "who was" or "served as" president. The second RfC was about a different issue, whether to link "45th president of the United States" to Presidency of Donald Trump or 45th "president of the United States" to President of the United States). By the time of the third RfC — on whether to add politician to Trump's jobs — the common occupation links were gone, and, when the issue of the order of his jobs came up again a couple of months later, nobody had missed them in the lead or noticed that the blue text in consensus #50 indicated links. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 19:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Valid, I guess. Cessaune [talk] 03:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Link removals look good, to me. GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm only seeing this now, but just for the record, I would've supported retaining the links. The subarticles are important ones that we ought to make it easy for interested readers to find, and that in my mind takes precedence over any EGGiness. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The links are already in the article twice, thrice, and twice, respectively. All three are in the infobox's occupation field. I think interested readers are given sufficient opportunity to find those articles without glaring violation of MOS:EGG in the first sentence of this high-profile article. Thankfully, readers don't stop reading at the first sentence. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Jan 6th Capitol riot DEATHS?!

Why does it continue to say that several people died at the Jan 6th, Capitol riot...the specifics on WIKIPEDIA show BEFORE, DURING & AFTER the riot... 5 people died! 1 person, Ashli Babbitt, a protester, died on that day at the Capitol, due to the riot...at the hands of Capitol Police. The other deaths were of drug overdoses & natural causes, including the Police Officer it refers to...who died on a different day completely. NOTHING to do with the riot or the attack itself. Saying that several people died at the Capitol riot & not clarifying the specifics is outright falsehood & propaganda! 70.52.181.171 (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Babbitt is not described as a "protester" SPECIFICO talk 03:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The contents in this article are summary-level, per consensus #37. For readers who want to read more, the Capitol attack section has a link to the main article, January 6 United States Capitol attack, underneath the section title. Our text, which says resulting in multiple deaths in the lead and five people died in the body, is supported by the cited and other sources. See also consensus #62 with the linked RfC and this long discussion that preceded the RfC. Babbitt wasn't a protester, she was one of the rioters. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 11:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Ashli Babbitt was not just a protester or a minor rioter. As I read the reliable sources, she was among the group of the most violent and aggressive rioters who penetrated deep into the Capitol Building, endangering members of Congress and countless other innocent people. She was warned to back off, and refused to do so. Her death is a tragedy that she brought on herself. Cullen328 (talk) 08:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Nov. 19

please mention how he disgraced Jimmy Carter on the day his wife died. 24.19.192.53 (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

We would need to see any such event receive widespread coverage in published sources. SPECIFICO talk 03:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

That shouldn`t be too hard Anonymous8206 (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTNEWS. How cumbersome would this article be if we included every Trump offense? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Who won the 2016 election?

Trump won in 2016 and lost in 2020. Yet the lead says he was a “losing” candidate in 2016. Here’s the full sentence in the lead:

Trump won the 2016 presidential election as the Republican nominee against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton while losing the popular vote.

Now that a lot of time has passed, and we’ve seen the baneful effects of election denialism on all sides, I suggest we reconsider saying Trump lost in 2016. He didn’t. In basketball we don’t say, for example, that the Lakers scored more points but the Celtics won the most applause. It reeks of denialism to say Trump lost the election in 2016 in any way, and if he had lost then the entire executive branch (and the entire country) would have been entitled and obliged to subvert his presidency. I suggest a slight rephrase:

Trump won the 2016 presidential election as the Republican nominee against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton while she received more of the popular vote.

In other words, he got more of the electoral vote, which is what counts. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose A solution without a problem. SPECIFICO talk 10:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• Huh? The sentence says that Trump won the 2016 presidential election. How do you get "election denialism" from that wording? And, yeah, according to a many RS, he also lost the popular vote — by 2.9 million votes, which is a bit more than Clinton receiving "more of the popular vote". Quoting our cited source: "For the fifth time in U.S. history, and the second time this century, a presidential candidate has won the White House while losing the popular vote." A few others, in no particular order: "Note: Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 but won the Electoral College" (PBS); "—2016: Trump won the Electoral College, 304 electoral votes to Hillary Clinton’s 227 — but lost the popular count by 2.8 million votes" (AP); "How Did Trump Win Election While Losing Popular Vote" (VoA); "An updated count by the Cook Political Report shows Trump lost the popular vote ..." (Vox). And a couple saying Clinton won the popular vote: "... indications are that Hillary Clinton will become the fifth presidential candidate to lose the election despite winning the popular vote" (Guardian); "Hillary Clinton Officially Wins Popular Vote by Nearly 2.9 Million" (ABC); "... a margin of 233,404 that puts Clinton on track to become the fifth U.S. presidential candidate to win the popular vote but lose the election" (NPR). Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose no we say he won the election, but yes, popularity is also significant. Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose It reeks of denialism ? No, the reek here is from a lack of comprehension of the subject matter. Presidents who lose the popular vote but squeak in via the Electoral College is a well-known, well-documented subject of political interest. There's even an article on it. This has nothing to do with election denialism, but rather a (well-sourced) observation on the thwarting of the will of the people. Zaathras (talk) 12:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - The words "mandate" and "landslide" have both repeatedly been used to characterize the election. The popular vote does not suggest illegitimacy to the Trump win. But, it does suggest the illegitimacy of claims of a mandate or landslide. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - I struggle to see how you get any sense of "election denialism" from this. Rather, I question your understanding of either or both of 1) the English language and 2) the Electoral College system of electing US presidents. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral - Trump isn't the only US president to be elected without getting the most popular votes. FWIW - technically, nobody won the popular vote, as nobody got over 50%. Anyways, I'm content with either the status quo or the proposed change. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• La bufera di opposizione porta a una chiusura precipitosa. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  In english: "The storm of opposition leads to a hasty closure". GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The lead of George W. Bush says In the 2000 United States presidential election, he won over Democratic incumbent Vice President Al Gore, despite losing the popular vote... As long as we're consistent across the relevant articles of presidency-winning-but-popular-vote-losing presidents, I don't see an issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support: It reads defensively. Trump didn't really win, apparently.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  The longstanding wording reflects the near-universal statements in the best RS references. SPECIFICO talk 23:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  The first five words of the sentence are Trump won the 2016 presidential election – Muboshgu (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• I don't have a principle objection to the wording, as it's a factually accurate statement and doesn't evokes election denialism or the alike. It does flatter the narratives that he may not have legitimately earned the presidency in the minds of people who object to the electoral college but that's another issue. However, whether or not its due is a more nuanced question IMO. The lead is bloated. What makes this important to include? The national popular vote has no bearing on who becomes president... so why mention it in the lead of this article? Removing it would also allow us to remove the distracting note having to describe what the electoral college is. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 06:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Has anyone ever legitimately earned the presidency? He was elected, period, and his having been legitimately elected despite his opponent getting almost 3 million more votes than him is an important part of his biography. The footnote is not distracting, it's necessary for readers not familiar with this peculiar institution. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Legitimate is subjective. Just saying "his opponent getting almost 3 million more votes than him is an important part of his biography" does not provide adequate reasoning as to why it's important, much less why its important enough for the lead. Again, I ask, why is his opponent getting more votes an important part of the article considering the national popular vote has no relevancy to who wins? Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 04:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  I agree it's not due in the bloated introduction.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Italics in hatnotes

I attempted to fix the italics issue in two hatnotes in this article. Both Space4Time3Continuum2x and Iamreallygoodatcheckers removed the improvements without any constructive comment, despite my comment directing them to the relevant style guideline WP:ITHAT. I propose we reinstate my changes. Thrakkx (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Admittedly, I was unfamiliar with the guideline. You may reinstate. My apologies. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 19:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Not so fast. Does WP:ITHAT apply in this case? Words or phrases that are italicized within a normal sentence should be unitalicized within a hatnote. Since all words in a hatnote are italicized, the specific text will not stand out if the italics are not disabled. The "specific text" is the only text, there's no other text it could — or needs to — stand out from. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 19:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: yes it does. There is automatically generated, italicized text when using the {{Main}} template, namely "Main article:". So the phrase "Main article: E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump" must be presented in a hatnote as "Main article: E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump". Thrakkx (talk) 04:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Space4T. OP appears to be reading the letter of the guideline, specifically the first sentence, without understanding its purpose and intent. The guideline should apply only when part of the hatnote text is italicized within a normal sentence, not all of it; otherwise, it accomplishes nothing. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mandruss As I replied above, I do understand the purpose and intent of this guideline. All hatnote templates produce italicized text (in the case of this article, "Main article:"), so the destination article text must always be unitalicized. Thrakkx (talk) 04:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

After another read, I concede the intent. However, I question the purpose.

From the guideline: Since all words in a hatnote are italicized, the specific text will not stand out if the italics are not disabled. I would disagree; the blue color is enough to make the text "stand out". Can you explain why we need roman type as well, particularly when the entire target title is in italics?

"Because the guideline says so" is never sufficient. Guidelines are not only prescriptive but descriptive – for better or worse – which means that editors must be allowed to deviate when they don't make sense. I could see some logic in cases like "Main article: E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump".

It would also make more sense to use roman type for "Main article:" in this case, as: "Main article: E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump". Maybe you should propose that at WT:HATNOTE? ―Mandruss ☎ 05:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I am a partial author of this guideline. I don't see the value in requesting fundamental changes to the italicization of hatnote text as you suggest. This is why ITHAT exists:

New York State's civil fraud case

Main article: New York civil investigation of The Trump Organization

Lorem ipsum...

E. Jean Carroll's lawsuits

Main article: E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump

Lorem ipsum

If the italicization of the case name is not canceled, the reader cannot tell from text alone that case names are italicized according to Wikipedia's style guide. This is especially apparent in the example above with the first hatnote that is fully in italics because the destination article title is not italicized under normal circumstances. A deviation from this guideline would not make sense; it implies that Wikipedia doesn't italicize the names of court cases, which is of course not true. Thrakkx (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It implies that it's a link to a main article that looks the other links to main articles in this article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Using roman type to denote italics will never make much sense to me, sorry. Even if readers could figure that out. I don't know who that guideline is serving, but it isn't readers. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see where the confusion is coming from. "Reverse italicization" is a pretty widespread convention. The APA, for instance, says to "use reverse italics when a word or phrase is italicized within a title or other phrase that is already italicized". See: https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/formandstyle/apa/more/italics --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm getting on in years, I pay almost obsessive attention to little details like that, and I've never seen such reverse italics. So I don't know how widespread it could be. But I guess we have to bow to major style guides even when they make little sense, and I withdraw my opposition. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

(Walden University? Doonesbury fans?) The cite says to, as a general rule, use italics sparingly ("splitting the infinitive" intentionally) and that italics are appropriate for - followed by items 1–7. I assume you are referring to item 1, "Titles of ..."? The three examples show the titles used in sentences which isn't the case here. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to the instruction to remove the italics when the italicized material is used "within a title or other phrase that is already italicized". The "other phrase" here is the infobox as a whole, so that any words that would normally be italicized become straight text instead. Here is the APA itself saying this: https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/italics-quotations/italics. "When words that would normally be italicized appear within text that is already italicized, those words should be set in standard (nonitalic) type, referred to as reverse italicization." --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

In other words, if the normal string is "fooity foobar foo", then the italicized version of that string is "fooity foobar foo", no matter the reason for the use of italics in the original. The italicized form of a normally italicized term is the same term in standard type. ALWAYS. At least in APA.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Party Political Offices

@Woodensuperman: Why did you move the navbox, if that is the correct name, "Office and distinctions" into the prominent position above the other ones? Was that intentional? The new title "Party Political Positions" isn't an improvement either, IMO. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

They were succession boxes hidden inside navbox markup. That is incorrect usage of the functionality. Navboxes and succession boxes are two separate things and we should not be using a hybrid of both when succession boxes have their own method to collapse. --woodensuperman 13:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I just looked at Trump's predecessors Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. They're all using navboxes with succession tables for various political offices. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

They are using the markup incorrectly then. That's not a good reason not to correct it here. --woodensuperman 13:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there a WP/MOS rule on this? There must be hundreds of articles using this "incorrect" format then. I just looked at some random U.S. senators' articles. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure there needs to be an MoS for this, it seems to me fairly obvious that navboxes should use navbox markup and succession boxes should be using succession markup! Perhaps someone didn't like the way that succession boxes are formatted and decided to hide them within navboxes and others have followed suit. Personally, I'm not a fan of succession boxes (or excessive navboxes for that matter), but shouldn't we be using the tools properly? Anyway, maybe WP:SBS? --woodensuperman 14:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, note that anything hidden in navbox markup cannot be seen on a mobile device. --woodensuperman 14:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Include mention of Trumpism in lead of article

Currently, Trumpism is only mentioned as a link in a "See also" under the section "Campaign rhetoric and political positions." Irrespective of Trump, I believe that any figure that has an entire ideology named after them should have that ideology mentioned in an article's lead. BootsED (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Trumpism is used ironically or imprecisely in various sources, but it is not a well-enough defined term to be considered an ideology. SPECIFICO talk 03:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

"Trumpism" isn't coherent enough to be an actual ideology. It's just "Trump said it so I'm gonna cheer" even if what he says in one sentence is completely contradictory towards what he said in the previous one. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Trumpism has been used to describe an ideology, political movement, and the overall personal style of Donald Trump. However, I do believe that it is significant enough to include a mention in the lead. A quick Google search of Trumpism will include links to hundreds of articles, academic journals, and reputable sources that talk about it and its impacts on American politics. Trump has in many ways redefined and captured the Republican Party and oversaw major shifts in American politics to an unprecedented degree.

To that end, I believe that we should add in a brief sentence after "During the campaign, his political positions were described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist" stating:

 His rise created a political movement known as [[Trumpism]].

This would be similar to how Reaganomics/Reaganism is included in the lead of Ronald Reagan's page, even though Reaganism is limited to an economic angle, while Trumpism is more in line with a political movement and ideological angle. Trumpism has been a major force making the Republican Party more populist, and I believe that this unique movement deserves mention within the lead of the article. BootsED (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

What do those academic sources say? Isn't MAGA the most common reterm for what you describe? SPECIFICO talk 23:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Trumpism appears to be the preferred term among academics rather than "MAGA" itself. A search in JSTOR filtered to include only research reports brought up more relevant results with Trumpism than with MAGA. Another article by the Cambridge American Political Science Review found that "Partisan terms indicating identification with Trumpism (e.g., “Trump,” “MAGA”) are more frequent than those referencing the Republican Party itself" when it came to social media. So yes, MAGA can refer to Trumpism, but Trumpism seems to be the preferred term under which "MAGA" is identified. MAGA is also a political campaign slogan, which might partly be why Trumpism is seen as more fitting for academic use. BootsED (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The lead section is a summary of the most important contents of the article, and this article doesn't—and shouldn't, IMO—mention Trumpism. According to its WP article, people have widely differing opinions on what Trumpism is; some dispute that it exists. As for "Reaganomics", the Reagan article uses the term in scare quotes in the lead and the body. It's GOP PR for Reagan's economic policies that were either great or awful, depending on whom you ask. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

As other have said, its not really a coherent movement, but by the same token, it maybe what he ends up being remembered for. Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

One more interesting piece of information, WP has an entire category for Trumpism, with Donald Trump listed within that category. Vivek Ramaswamy's WP page also has him in the Trumpism category, not to mention the page List of politicians associated with Trumpism which I think shows how Trumpism has spread beyond Donald Trump himself, and is further indication of its importance to mention in the lead of the article. If the consensus is against putting it in the lead, I believe that it should at least be more explicitly mentioned within the body of the article itself beyond the current "See also" mention, most potentially as a sentence within the "Campaign rhetoric and political positions" section at the end of the first paragraph. Again, there are many academic journals that talk about the impact Trumpism has had on American politics and the Republican Party writ large. BootsED (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The sources you linked are interesting but don't show widespread use in mainstream peer-reviewed scholarly sources. Based on your knowledge of the term and its application, how would you describe "trumpism" in a sentence or two? SPECIFICO talk 20:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how best to describe Trumpism beyond what I have already stated. The WP page on Trumpism provides a broad description of the term and its uses, and itself links to many sources describing the phenomenon. The Cambridge Dictionary defines a basic version of the term. I respectfully disagree with your assertion that the "sources you linked are interesting but don't show widespread use in mainstream peer-reviewed scholarly sources." There is widespread use of the term in academic peer reviewed sources. Let me link to this one, or this one, or this one, or this one, or this one, or this one, or this one, or this one, or this one. Some good definitions of Trumpism include, "Generalized structural equation modeling (GSEM) of 2021 US survey data tests Trumpism (approval of ex-president Trump) as an emergent political-identity indicator, descendant from the classical divisions by party and ideology but exerting its own distinct influence" from this resource or "We argue that Trumpism is a disunifying symbol in our respondents’ self-narratives. Specifically, right-leaning collegians use Trumpism to draw distinctions over the appropriate meaning of conservatism" from this resource. As you can see, Trumpism is a new self-identifying label among certain identity groups wholly independent of mainstream conservativism brought into existence by Donald Trump. One interesting point on this is former Speaker Newt Gingrich giving a speech hosted by the Heritage Foundation on "Understanding Trump and Trumpism" which shows the widespread adoption of this term even within leading conservative thought circles. With that said, Trumpism therefore deserves greater mention within the body of this article itself, and preferably a mention in the lead of this article. BootsED (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Well there's no disputing that it's a turn of phrase. But the sources you have found are not really very strong, I think trumism - while notable as a matter of language and speech -- is not a well-defined policy or course of action that goes beyond him personally, changing every time he speaks, that would add to readers' understanding of him on this bio page. SPECIFICO talk 23:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The first link above does have some engaging language, -- "unimpeded horizontality" etc. but it also has a link "click here to join our editorial board" -- that makes it look like an artifact of a biased google search. Interestingly, the linked essays don't appear to have clear definitions of their own, despite lots more fancy language from the academic study of communications -- "discursive ambiguity" etc. Because we have a WP page on Trumpism, there might be no harm giving it a one-sentence mention as a term of speech somewhere in the Rhetoric section, where we already have a see also link. The main point is that Trumpism is a communications phenomenon ratheer than a political ideology. SPECIFICO talk 13:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I recommend not putting 'Trumpism' in the lead of this BLP. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that there is more than enough coverage of the topic to warrant further mention in the body. Do you have a wording in mind for something that could potentially go in the lead? Cessaune [talk] 03:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Besides the one you inculded which I find kinda 'meh'. Cessaune [talk] 05:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Political positions

It's common that a politician's bio article includes a "Political positions" section. Here, quite a bit can be gleaned from the extensive coverage of his presidency, but that doesn't dispose of the issue. Since leaving office, he's talked about things he would do differently in a second term, so we can't just assume that everything he did as President represents a current position. There is some more recent information in the daughter article on his 2024 campaign. Per WP:SS, however, there should be at least a summary here. That might be an alternative to a separate "Political positions" section. One way or the other, the subject merits inclusion. JamesMLane t c 19:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

This might best be addressed in the section above captioned "fascism" where we appear to be converging on some coverage of his current views and aspirations. SPECIFICO talk 19:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that some of his recent statements have drawn criticism as fascism or fascism-adjacent, and that it's a subject worth including. The problem is that he's made many other statements that would go in a "Political positions" section but that don't fit under the "fascism" rubric -- Middle East conflict, withdrawal from NATO, repeal of Obamacare, etc. JamesMLane t c 04:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Weren’t solving the Middle East conflict, withdrawal from NATO, repeal of Obamacare all positions he had when he ran the last time? I’m not sure I see the value unless they are accompanied with some sense that there are plans that go along with these goals. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Anyway he said he's achieved 2 out of 3 and he's working on Obamacare right now, so. SPECIFICO talk 15:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Many of the Republicans who supported Obamacare repeal during Trump’s first term don’t hold that position now. GOP Senators Reject Trump's Latest Bid to Revoke Obamacare Saying It's 'Technically Impossible' We can’t simply assume that a position from several years ago represents anyone’s current views. Furthermore, as that article illustrates, Trump’s recent renewed call for repeal is notable as having generated discussion (pro and con), more so than his typical reiteration of previous positions. On other issues, there are changed circumstances. Along with the renewed outbreak of violence in the Middle East, there’s the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which some people blame on NATO but which others say illustrates NATO’s continuing importance. It’s useful to the reader to present up-to-date information about Trump’s views. JamesMLane t c 20:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it's worth considering, because for politicians, political positions are in many ways defining. There's a child article, and IMO Joe Biden#Political positions shows it can be done well. DFlhb (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

24h BRD restriction reminder

(comment in non-admin capacity) Just reminding everyone that this article has an active 24h BRD restriction, which reads:

You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message.

It can be hard to tell whether removal of content is a revert of a recent edit or a non-revert removal of older content. This can make it hard to tell if reverting that removal is an appropriate revert or a potential violation of this restriction. Please be careful, and it's best to use the talk page instead of reverting. Pinging some editors who've been involved in recent back-and-forth revert cycles: @Sennalen, GoodDay, SPECIFICO, PackMecEng, Space4Time3Continuum2x, PhotogenicScientist, and Cessaune. I'm not saying all of you have violated or even potentially violated the restriction; just a heads up. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Fully aware. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Cessaune [talk] 16:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Fully aware. This was removal of older content. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2023

Remove the comma after "in Washington, D.C." when describing the felony counts in the last paragraph of the intro. After every state ("in Florida", "in New York", "in Georgia") there is no comma, and this comma breaks the flow of the sentence. GardenCosmos (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Washington, D.C., is not a state and I have found that in all other articles it always has comma after "D.C.", so I see nothing wrong here. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@GardenCosmos: See MOS:GEOCOMMA. The Florida, New York, and Georgia do not have multiple levels of subordinate divisions. For example, we would follow "Miami, Florida" with a comma. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Lafayette Square

I removed the Lafayette Square section and it was promptly re-included. This section describes an event where protesters were removed by federal law enforcement from a location near the White House, Donald Trump shortly thereafter visiting the location and it being used for media purposes, and this being criticised by others. This plainly seems like a section that belongs on some other article (in fact, has its own article), and does not belong as a section in this article. This was not a particularly notable event or iconic moment of the Donald Trump chronicles, not materially significant to his presidency or his biography (his life), and not something as notable as his presidential pardons or his immigration policy, which are respectively the previous and following sections. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

This was workshopped intensively before being added to the article and has been discussed several times since then. I urge all editors to comment only in the event there is any support for this removal, which has now been reverted. We don't need to engage in extensive, repetitive threads about every challenge to consensus except when such challenges appear to be headed toward a new consensus to revise longstanding text. SPECIFICO talk 03:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Most of the "workshopping" was shortly after the event itself. The content itself is not the issue, it is the presence of the content in this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

That's incorrect. Please review the archives. SPECIFICO talk 17:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

That Lafayette Square incident was a seminal moment in Trump's term in office, where a peaceful protest was suppressed, he lied about their intent, and threatened to invoke the military to accomplish all of it. Zaathras (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm asserting that this was not a seminal moment, certainly not enough to warrant inclusion in this particular article. There are many more events relating to Donald Trump with greater notability, and this one is not especially cited as one of the defining moments of his presidency, let alone of his life. Ultimately, it is up to the talk page to determine, whether they agree with me or disagree. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

How long has the section-in-question been in this BLP? GoodDay (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Since shortly after the event itself in 2020. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

It's been repeatedly discussed and I don't think there was anything other than "no consensus" in discussions since its addition. Several issues remain unaddressed, shoved aside by appeals to supposed past consensus.

• The first issue is that on talk, editors keep arguing the incident "matters" for XYZ reasons, yet these reasons never get added to the article. It matters because: several scholars said it was a violation of the 1st Amendment, and a strong erosion of democratic norms. You'd never know that, reading the section. Instead you'd learn protesters were mostly peaceful (meaning "it was kinda justified"). Comical fail. It's counterproductive.
• The second issue is that what I just said can fit in 2 sentences, and that's all we need to mention about the event. The incident isn't mentioned once in our WP:BESTSOURCE by far, Zelizer 2022; we're supposed to base our due weight decisions on WP:BESTSOURCES. The badly hurt church that was almost burned down, the photo-op, and especially the bible, were all distractions meant as catnip to the TV talking heads, so they would focus on appearances and miss the substance. Past editors fell into the same trap.

Trim to two sentences that focus on substance (constitutional violation, democratic norms), and make it part of a new section about the erosion of democratic norms and sabotage of the administrative state under Trump (which I've proposed before with full scholarly sourcing). DFlhb (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC) edited 19:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The comical fail "largely peaceful" is the compromise with the editors who argued that a few demonstrators threw water bottles when riot-geared law enforcement attacked them with batons, rubber bullets and canisters of "smoke". Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, well 1/6 was perfect-peaceful and there was no fire and no babies were burned, no bibles were desecrated, plus -- the Park Service. Smokey Bear does not lie, etc. SPECIFICO talk 17:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Baker/Glasser's The Divider devotes an entire chapter to The Battle of Lafayette Square, where "Trump had staged what would become the most infamous photo-op of his presidency".

Work cited
Baker, Peter; Glasser, Susan (2023) [2022]. The Divider. Anchor Books. ISBN 978-0-593-08296-6.

The event was notable and iconic — using federal law enforcement to break up a lawful demonstration for the purpose of staging a show of strength/dominance, with the Bible and the highest-ranking military officer as a prop. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

That's a good find - DFlhb (talk) 07:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

That is indeed a good find. Do you have access to the full book? If so, you might consider incorporating it as a source into the article, if you have time. This article is worryingly low on good, high quality sourcing: practically all references are from newspapers and websites, and especially bad as there is so much material to draw on. It's itching for something better. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I have the book, not a lot of time at the moment. I don't agree with your assessment on this article lacking good, high quality sourcing. With currently 845 cites, there may be some low-quality sources that have slipped through our vetting but as a rule this article adheres to WP:RS. Do you have specific cites in mind? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 18:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Can we get some more views on this? Appreciating that Specifico, Space4Time3Continuum2x and Zaathras believe the Lafayette Square event was very notable, while I believe that the entire section is undue for this article and DFlhb believes most of it should be removed. GoodDay may want to clarify their view. I am surprised that anybody would consider this to be particularly notable among the other 1500 days of the Trump administration, let alone his entire life. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I've no objections to its removal. It just doesn't compare to the events of Jan 6, 2021 in terms of notability, to be included in this BLP. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

if Jan 6 is the criteria, then like barely anything Trump has ever done would compare. Cessaune [talk] 14:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay, that's like saying Pearl Harbor pales in comparison with Hiroshima. Please give policy and sourcing based arguments when you offer these snap opinions. Just to point out why you're wrong -- Lafayette Square was a precursor and a forewarning of the violent 1/6 insurrection, as Milley Barr, Esper, and numerous others later said. SPECIFICO talk 15:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I was pinged here, to give input on whether said-info should be removed from the BLP or not. I've given that input. If @Onetwothreeip: isn't satisfied with my response? Then they're free to ignore it. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Attempting to re-enforce the barriers on the American-Mexican border, is highly notable. The Biden administration has (last I heard) continued that process. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

That's why I said barely. Cessaune [talk] 15:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay, with your half-million edits on this website, it would set a good example for editors still on their way to the first 100,000 if you would be mindful of the distinction between "notable" and "noteworthy" -- because you know it's notable. It has a widely viewed WP article on the subject. SPECIFICO talk 15:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The OP pinged for my input & I've given it. Either the aforementioned info will be excluded from this BLP or it won't. I'm not going to overly stress about it. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree it should be removed. It was a minor incident which was blown way out of proportion at the time. This is a bio and as such a trivial occurrence like this doesn't belong here.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Add mention that he's racist

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.

---

As many of you know, Trump's rhetoric is no stranger to controversy. Many reliable sources have characterized his rhetoric as racist and white supremacist, especially recently. Indeed, here are a few sources mentioning this.[3][4] [5]

Therefore, as virtually every WP:RS discusses his rhetoric as being racist-adjacent at the least, would it not be a material fact, and thus important to add, that Trump is a racist to his article? I personally have my doubts on the neutrality of this despite believing it's true, but if there's consensus to add, well, why not do it? TheCelebrinator (talk) 06:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Partly per #Current consensus #30, the article lead already states: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist and many as misogynistic." Wikivoice for this is unwarranted and a step too far. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Per above this is a BLP, as such we need very very good sources to say in your words he is something. Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be a backwards, WP:POINTY attempt by TheCelebrinator to establish some sort of precedent for their argument at Talk:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign § Blanket claims of white supremacist-leaning rhetoric et al. Suggest closing with a warning to the OP to not start frivolous discussions for fuel in their other disputes. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

IN which case I will point out, that saying he uses certain kinds of language is not the same as saying he is something. Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it's very much a legitimate discussion to have considering it's an important sujet du jour. Far from being a "frivolous discussion", as you describe it, it's an opportunity for everyone to share their opinion and thoughts on an important matter. You're welcome not to contribute, though.

P.S. As I'm only discussing this on the talk page and have not attempted to enforce some sort of "rule", I don't see how I'm violating any policy here on WP:POINT. Since when have discussion and debate been a crime? What's your actual point? TheCelebrinator (talk) 14:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

If you don't see the clear problem with making a proposal that you don't actually support in an attempt to prove a point in a dispute on a different page, I can't help you. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

If you took the time to read our discussion on the other article you mentioned—maybe you didn't—you'd know that I stated that I would agree to disagree for the time being, and so this discussion has absolutely no bearing on any other issue. What happened to assuming good faith, as you say you do? TheCelebrinator (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I read the other discussion in full. Assuming good faith doesn't mean being naive. You basically threatened Andrevan with an extreme take of their point of view (Alright, let's add that [Trump is racist] to his article. We'll see how it goes. [6]) even though your opinion is that it is not neutral and shouldn't be added. So it's pretty obvious that you only started this discussion in order to prove a WP:POINT. Are you really trying to claim that you still would've started this discussion even if you hadn't been in that dispute? From the timestamps alone that seems pretty unlikely. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually, if you had read it in full, you would have come across this passage: "I agree [to putting this discussion on hold]. Let's agree to disagree." You unfortunately didn't read until the end. In other words, I agreed to end that discussion as at this time, there's not enough attention—and thus people editing—the article to have a thorough and balanced discussion on the matter. That's what I said.

Trying to assume malice when there's none is the opposite of good faith. Being naive is bad. So is being overly skeptical for all the wrong reasons. Neither extreme is good. The reason I started this discussion is to gauge what the overall opinion on the matter is. Seek a consensus. That's what I'm doing. TheCelebrinator (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

You "agreed to disagree" nearly two hours after your opening of this discussion. It is resoundingly clear that you would not have even started this discussion if you hadn't been in that dispute with Andrevan. You can keep posturing if you want, but I sincerely hope you at least try to understand the problem with your actions and the disruption it causes to waste valuable editor time just to demonstrate your point. ––FormalDude (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Nobody's forcing you to participate in this discussion. If your "valuable editor time" is more well spent on other matters, well, then go do that. Fortunately, the rest of us can chew gum and walk at the same time. We can both try and gauge consensus or opinion—which is what we should do—and also edit other things in the meanwhile. Maybe you can't, but that's hardly my fault, is it?

You might want to spend your "valuable editor time" reading WP:NOTPOINTy instead. It'd serve you well. TheCelebrinator (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

P.S. Apparently somebody decided to call me an idiot here, but couldn't even bother to check their own spelling—it's "you're," not "your." Sad! TheCelebrinator (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

This is not the place to discus user conduct. Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

As no one has supported this, can we snow close this as it is not going anywhere. Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

At least one editor partly supports this. Another told me as much, too. A bit premature to end a discussion after less than 12 hours. TheCelebrinator (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I do not see any users here supporting this, even partially. Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

"Partly per #Current consensus #30, the article lead already states: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist and many as misogynistic." It's not a full endorsement, obviously, but it's support for noting or at least indicating that his rhetoric is racist. TheCelebrinator (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Which we do, this is not about saying that, this is about saying he is racist, no one has supported that, not even the OP (all that is is saying "we do not need to change what we already say", it is not partial support). Here is a clue, unless someone says "I support this" no one has supported it. Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, if someone responds with "partly" to a question asking whether or not they support a proposal, then you can hardly blame me for interpreting that as partial support, can you? You can also view another thread here [7] for a more forceful endorsement.

But what I'm gathering, so far, is that very few people actually support outright explicitly calling Trump a racist in wikivoice. So far, anyways. TheCelebrinator (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2023

I am asking for a formal close. Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, so far, practically everyone here has indicated that they would oppose such a measure. I started this discussion to gauge a consensus. And now we know what the consensus says. It's not advisable to treat blanket assertions like "Trump is racist" as material fact, even if many WP:RS would support such a conclusion. That's exactly the outcome I had hoped for. TheCelebrinator (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

BLP violation, off topic and not constructive. SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see there being a chance of gaining a consensus for this proposed addition, anymore then there'd be a chance for consensus for a similar proposal being made at Joe Biden's BLP. Mainstream news media may attempt to read the minds of the current front-runners for the 2024 Republican & Democratic presidential nominations. Would recommend that we 'not' do so. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC) People are trying to add that to Biden's page? I did not know that actually, thanks for the info. TheCelebrinator (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC) Edit: misread. Mea culpa. I can admit my mistakes. Agree with the overall points made. TheCelebrinator (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC) Oppose proposed addition to this BLP, as I would at Joe Biden's BLP. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose the proposal, as it's best we stay clear of the topic-in-general. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2023 (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.

Somehow, the word "dictator" does not appear in the article

Despite Trump now gleefully boasting of his plans to rule as a dictator, even when lobbed softballs by a sycophant like Hannity, this page does not mention any of the recent news coverage or scholarly analysis on Trump's out-in-the-open plans for a dictatorship in 2025. This glaring omission ought to be corrected at once. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

See the above RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Donald Trump's rhetoric

To all of you discussiong Trump's rhetoric, I've now started an article about it. You are very welcome to contribute to it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marginataen (talk • contribs) 13:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Marginataen: It's already been deleted and redirected to this page. (Please sign your edits on Talk pages by clicking the four tildes.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't the page been nominated for deletion or re-direct, rather then (in this case) unilaterally re-directed. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The page has been reinstated and the redirect has been removed. It needs editors to add valid content, if such exists...promptly. SPECIFICO talk 17:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I suspect, the page will grow rapidly. DT is quite possibly the most quoted or commented upon US president, in history. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

There's a rhetoric subsection at Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign#Violent_and_dehumanizing_rhetoric. Wouldn't it suffice to keep his current campaign rhetoric there instead of adding another DT page? He's playing his hits at every rally, it's not as if there was new content all the time. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure the current title is the best for that content, but as a standalone page it seems at least on a par with the "racial views..." page. SPECIFICO talk 19:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't have any position on whether keeping it as a standalone article would be an appropriate content fork under WP:SPINOFF, but for consistency a better title would be Rhetoric of Donald Trump which currently redirects to False or misleading statements by Donald Trump. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, but: (1) The title implies and guides the content, and this is not sufficiently focused on the threat to American democracy, per sources. He has other kinds of rhetoric unrelated to the issue at hand. (2) It's not just about his rhetoric, but also his actions, starting with election denial that went way beyond words and has even gotten him into legal hot water.

This kind of discussion would be better conducted at Talk:Donald Trump's rhetoric, of course, but here we are. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Several editors have sought to add new articles or add/expand sections of articles about Trump’s "rhetoric". What does that word mean in this context? Dictionaries give several definitions of "rhetoric", which one is intended here? Does it include everything Trump has said in public, including not just his style of speaking but also the substance of what he’s talking about? Just saying "rhetoric" seems very vague. We should be able to come up with clearer description of scope. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

That page was going nowhere fast, was poorly defined, and has been redirected (not by me.) This idea that some editors can keep out serious encyclopedic and scholarly discussion of Trump's authoritarianism from his encyclopedia article by shunting it off to some fork page can now be dismissed. The leg you were standing on that it should go somewhere else rather than on the man's own page is now gone. Trump's authoritarianism is an aspect of the man that has received voluminous discussion. Indeed, it is one of the most notable and written about topics regarding Trump. Its absence from the article is palpable, and makes the page look like an unserious, nonencylopedic whitewash. I can (indeed, I have already done so and posted it) compile a list of 100 sources on this topic from the last several weeks alone, all from reliable, top-quality publications. There is no legitimate argument that a topic as widely discussed as Trump's authoritarianism should not be discussed in the article. If you think the reliable sources are wrong, simply add opposing views from reliable sources, should you be able to find any. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

As the 'new' page develops, it'll likely get a 'new' name. GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Let me be more succinct: 1) The topic of "Trump's rhetoric" is not the same as "Trump's authoritarianism". 2) The existence of that page should have no bearing on whether this article should discuss news media and scholarly literature on Trump's authoritarianism. It's a notable aspect of the present topic. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Imo, it is unnecessary, unconstructive, and counterproductive to link the two issues (sub-article and main article content). By no bearing, you may think you're saying the same thing, but mention of the main article doesn't belong in this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let me expound on my first point then. I thought the discussion was regarding an article on Trump's authoritarianism, in other words, his rejection of democratic norms, rule of law, separation of powers, and so on. I don't see how the discussion of an article on that topic led to the creation of a page on Trump's rhetoric, or his art and methods of persuasion. This seems a total non-sequitor from the proposed article and content that was actually being discussed. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, per my comment above. But, pending an appropriate move, that article can serve as a place-holder. Alternatively, we can request delete and start over with the title. Either way, we need qualified editors who are willing to contribute their time writing content. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I did recently compile a long list of recent sources that might be useful that I posted on the Trump campaign talk page. I will see if I am able to make a content contribution, though I've not really ever worked on an article in as early a state as this. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

That's the spirit! ―Mandruss ☎ 02:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The article has one source, an analysis in CNN, that fails rs. Furthermore, the source is not directly about his rhetoric, but "how it conjures the prospect of a presidency like no other."

When you write an article you should first identify reliable sources about the topic and summarize what they say. It's really hard to start with a bad article and improve it. You shouldn't create articles anyway without familiarizing yourself with the topic first.

TFD (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: True, but we have tried and so far failed for something better at #Time for an article on Trump's alleged authoritarian inclinations and statements?. No more-qualified editors are biting. This looks like an "anything is better than nothing" approach. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

In my view, creation of this article should not obviate the need for inclusion of his authoritarian rhetoric in the BLP. It should not be used as any sort of consolation prize to avoid looking at the 16-ton pink elephant standing in the middle of the room. soibangla (talk) 02:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree completely. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Also agree, and I don't think that's anybody's intent. It's just that the two issues should be independent, in both directions. That's why we needn't discuss main article in this thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

this new article, this thread, is a diversion, whether deliberate or not, I cannot say soibangla (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

After a week or two, you seem to comprise a minority of 1 with that claim. No need to keep repeating. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

this matter arose today soibangla (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

You have been making similar statements for awhile; whether about a potential article or an actual article is beside the point. WP:STICK applies. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

take it to my Talk soibangla (talk) 03:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The 'new' article should be discussed about on its own talkpage, now that it exists. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I move the new article be deleted as it is, at minimum, poorly defined soibangla (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Would be better to move the entire discussion about the 'new' article, over to the 'new' article's talkpage. Having the discussion taking place 'here', is only a distraction from other discussions concerning only this BLP. GoodDay (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I went with AfD soibangla (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Fine with me (Soibangla, as per my indent). ―Mandruss ☎ 03:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Have "Trump" redirect here

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.

---

All this discussion has had me notice something. Every President since Ronald Reagan, with the exception of the two Bushes who share a single name, have their family names redirect to their respective articles. Presumably, that's because they're so well-known that their family name pretty much universally refers to the individual in question.

However, there is another exception to this. Donald Trump. I don't think it'd be a controversial statement to say that when people mention "Trump," they are referring to Donald J. Trump, 45/7th President of the United States. The only other suggestion when looking up Trump is a "trump card," but that usage is so far below Donald Trump's that I think it'd be best to just redirect here. What does everybody here make of this? TheCelebrinator (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Minor correction: "Clinton" doesn't also redirect to Bill Clinton, but that chages my point little as it's a very common name, more common than "Trump", anyhow. TheCelebrinator (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Follow the guidance on WP:DPT. Cessaune [talk] 20:14, 28 December 2023 (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.

Age at inauguration

Under "Early actions", I would like to add the fact that Trump was the oldest person in US history to be sworn in as president. This appears quiet significant. The same has been done on Reagan's page. My proposal can be seen below:

70 years old at the time, he became the oldest person to assume the U.S. presidency, surpassing Ronald Reagan who took office at age 69 in 1981; this ranking would at age 78 be passed on to Joe Biden in 2021. Marginataen (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

LOr "he became the oldest until he was not", seems to me to not really be very informative. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Have we the same written about Reagan (nearly 70, in January 1981) & before that W. Harrison (68, in March 1841)? Kinda irrelevant trivia, since Biden (passed 78, in January 2021) too office. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

We have the same or similar at Ronald Reagan only because this user recently added it, so it should be reverted. Zaathras (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I've just removed the trivia from Reagan's bio page. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

No. Once you get surpassed by someone in these kinds of trivia cases, we do not need to keep a record of or make note of the status quo ante. What if, praytell, a 90 year-old is someday elected to the presidency? We're going to add it like

70 years old at the time, he became the oldest person to assume the U.S. presidency, surpassing Ronald Reagan who took office at age 69 in 1981]]; this ranking would at age 78 be passed on to Joe Biden in 2021, until it was surpassed by Old-Man-Aged-90 in 2034.

No, this endless trivia stops here. Zaathras (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

You guys seriously find it to be "trivia" that Trump was the oldest POTUS in history? Grover Cleveland's article currently writes that he is the only president to serve serve non-consecutive presidential terms. If this changes in 2025, that would be updated and Trump' name would be mentioned on his page over 100 years after Cleveland's death. It is not unusual to update a fact about a record holder when the person in question no longer holds X record. Even if it's surpassed more than a 100 years later. Marginataen (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

How many times has the oldest person to become US president record, been broken? The first time was Adams (going on 62, in March 1797) breaking Washington's record (57, in April 1789), for example. Then Van Buren (going on 55, in March 1837) broke the youngest person to become US president record, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Reminds me of how we in the UK keep getting younger and younger PMs. When Blair, Cameron and Sunak took office the media noted every time that they were "the youngest prime minister in 200 years". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

This is an article, not a baseball card.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, Marginataen, yes, it is a trivial and unnecessary datum. The parallelism with baseball cards was spot on. -The Gnome (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a highly biased Wikipedia page about Donald 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.

---

It lacks a balanced view of his presidency. SenseiPaine (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Please read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@SenseiPaine: Making sure you see this. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:11, 31 December 2023 (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.

RFC: evolution of authoritarian rhetoric

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Procedural close, RfC malformed

The discussion here is pretty long, but unfortunately, the most apt replies come from those who want to close this RfC on procedural grounds. There are quite a lot of those people, particularly at the end of the discussion.

WP:RFCNEUTRAL has a good box outlining the good and the bad questions. The difference between this question and the third bullet point from bad questions is that here, there are potentially unlimited options that could satisfy the criteria set out in the question instead of just an excessive number of proposals.

Whether content is due and has appropriate weight is pretty subjective from editor to editor, that's why there is a lot of discussions about that and that's why we need consensus before introducing disputed content. Also, the problem with this question is that specific findings of consensus may mean totally different things for different editors. Any "yes" result does not indicate how much space, what scope, or which sources or tone, will the author use (presumably in this article), and what is "reasonable" for one editor need not be for another. On the other hand, any "no" result may be seen by some as a reason to shut down the debate about this for the foreseeable future, even though supporters demonstrated that reliable sources about this issue exist in fair numbers. Neither result is optimal.

This RfC is malformed because it is unclear which changes will (not) be authorised after consensus is (not) found in this discussion. (If this RfC was not supposed to change the article, why start it in the first place?) Restart it, state a specific question about a specific implementation of what you want to introduce, or a choice between specific implementations that you will figure out before the RfC, with a possibility to oppose any inclusion. Because the RfC is malformed, my closure does not indicate existence or lack of consensus for any wording on this issue. (non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Should this article include an evolution of Trump authoritarian rhetoric to the extent it is supported by reliable sources? soibangla (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Survey (II)

• Oppose- Better suited in Trump's 2024 campaign. In what manner? that's for the campaign page discussion to decide. GoodDay (talk) 05:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• Conditional support - I wouldn't oppose a mention/link about Trump rhetoric, if a separate page were created about his rhetoric. GoodDay (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  this suggests someone would need to go to the effort to create a fully populated whole new article, which may not happen, as a condition to clear a hurdle of even mentioning his authoritarian rhetoric in the BLP that has been extensively reported in reliable sources over years. soibangla (talk) 04:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  Such a page would begin small & then gradually grow. From what I've been reading (news coverage, news papers, etc), there'd be enough material for such a page. I suspect it would require a neutral title like "Donald Trump's rhetoric". All it would take, is one editor to begin such a page & then from there, others would add to it. GoodDay (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  maybe that would happen. but it has not happened, and the prospect it might happen should not be presented as a good reason to preclude BLP inclusion based on years of reliable sources reporting soibangla (talk) 05:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  GoodDay, there's no policy or guideline that validates your personal "condition", nor have you explained any other rationale for it. There are several articles that can and do relate to the propsed content -- political positions of trump, racial views of trump, church photo-op, the presidential campaign pages, etc. RfC's are not advanced one way or the other by unsupported declamations. SPECIFICO talk 15:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  Hello, I've now started an article about Donald Trump's rhetoric after seeing your discussion about it here. Marginataen (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Support It is obviously pertinent to the article topic and is one of its most notable aspects. The amount of ink that has been spilled on this topic is staggering. Adding this material rectifies a glaring omission from the article. Notable aspects of a topic, ESPECIALLY when controversial, must be included in an article. Indeed, all major controversies must even be included in the lead. This certainly qualifies. Please note that I have also requested comment on whether such material should be included in the campaign article as well. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support; this was left out, out of an abundance of caution because it's a sensitive topic. But the sourcing has only gotten stronger, including scholarly sourcing, and by now, to leave it out is a bias by omission; that claim gets overused but here it's true given the strength of sourcing. I separately think we should cover his authoritarian actions as president, as those good sources do, not just his rhetoric. DFlhb (talk) 06:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• I guess not. It's not really in our wheelhouse. It's just too hard for us to be truly fair and neutral and not lead the reader. Herostratus (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  That reasoning would apply to most of the AP2 area, including around one-third of this article. Everybody has biases, and yet we forge onward. But I'm not !voting. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  One-third? Well this article is pretty long, so... making it stick to just objectively verified facts might be an improvement. I dunno, maybe we should spin all this off into an article Endless debates about Donald Trump on Wikipedia or something. Could probably find outside sources talking about it. Herostratus (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• Nope. Presumably, authoritarian rhetoric includes fascist rhetoric. It would be better to cover this in sub-articles, where there is plenty of room to explain the difference between being a fascist as opposed to using words or phrases that merely sound kinda fascistic. The latter is not important enough for this main BLP, and it would take up too much space to explain that there's no consensus he's a fascist, whereas it's much clearer that he has used some suspicious phraseology which could signify (A) a change in his thinking, or (B) a dropping of the veil as NYT put it, or (C) could merely signify that he's just trying to sound provocative. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  "fascist" is not proposed here. This !vote should be stricken and disregarded. SPECIFICO talk 11:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  If the RFC question meant to use the word “authoritarian” in a way to exclude “fascism” then it would be quite an unusual use of the word “authoritarian”. Moreover, the preceding discussion at this talk page confirms that allegedly fascist rhetoric is at issue here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  This poll is clearly defined above, and its result will concern only the question that it states. That is how RfC's work. That is why we do them. SPECIFICO talk 14:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose As I am unsure exactly what is being asked, What a paragraph, a whole section of many paragraphs, half the article? A list, prose text sourced only to academics? Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose This would be better covered in the campaign article. At this point it's not central to the biography. Props to the editors who watch this article to maintain NPOV. Seems like a nightmare task. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support - "to the extent covered in RS" negates any NPOV concerns by those who oppose such content. This is not a proposal to ignore NPOV.
  Trump's totalitarain proclivites are not a recent development. Trump has displayed this bent since long ago - see Central Park Five, Repeated 2015-2016 campaign exhortations to beat dissenters to a pulp, lock her up without evidence, etc. etc. January 6, which was not mere rhetoric, was predicated on months of refusal to say he would accept the result of the 2020 election "depending on the facts" and other totalitarian warnings. SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support -- The steady escalation of his authoritarian rhetoric is not isolated to a campaign, thus it should not be relegated to campaign articles. This has been discussed since before his presidency and (with the recent incendiary quotes), risen to striking prominence in discussion of the man, not just the candidate. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - This type of decision is extremely difficult on subjects with nearly unlimited potential sources. I usually try to imagine a neutral 1-2 page summary of the subject and what would be highlighted. I don't think an expanded section on authoritarian tendencies meets my bar for inclusion. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I think a more specific proposal is necessary. As it stands, this is too vague to either support or oppose. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support --I think that Trump's comments have sufficiently evolved and changed over time to warrant a mention in the article. I also think Trumpism should be discussed in a sentence, along with Trump's status in fundamentally remaking the GOP so much that many commentators now refer to the pro-Trump and anti-Trump Republican Party. BootsED (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Yes it should, I believe this is a notable part of Trump as explained by RS. Andre🚐 02:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Oppose, but mostly because it is a very weirdly worded rfc that is likely to cause editorial conflict unless the scope is specified. "To the extent it is supported by reliable sources" is a very vague term - This can encompass anything from a one line summary to a 10kb essay, depending on how much analysis and how many RS one can dig up. The OP should, if they wish to introduce such content, start a discussion for a draft for the new content (WP:RFCBEFORE) and take the result of that draft to a fresh RFC. THat will be a much better measure of whether or not the content is due. Otherwise, this is likely to be interpreted very differently by editors based on their personal opinions. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  this is likely to be interpreted very differently by editors based on their personal opinions

  this has nothing with any personal opinions, or at least it shouldn't be. it is strictly limited to whether what reliable sources have persistently reported for several years should be included in the article, regardless of how it may be ultimately phrased. by any other reliable sources standard anywhere in this encyclopedia, it would have been included long ago. the RFC is binary: should the authoritarian rhetoric be included, yes or no? there has never been any mention of it in the BLP. soibangla (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  Due to the vague nature of the Rfc, it has everything to do with personal opinions and the interpretation of what this Rfc means.
  regardless of how it may be ultimately phrased is the wrong standard to use. RFCs are the best way to determine the exact way something contentious should be phrased, and it would be better to do it that way instead of "I want to put something of this topic in, dont know exactly what, can I get a stamp of approval?" Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  In addition to this, I think we can all agree that this is one of the most charged and decisive articles on Wikipedia; both sides think that this article has POV in favor of the opposite that they think it should be. Whether or not anyone thinks what should be and what will happen, it will be interpreted differently based on personal opinions. That's why we have consensus laid out at the top and basically every RfC is a novel, so everyone is clear on what consensus is and how it will affect the article. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 14:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. The real underlying question here is: Is commenting on Trump authoritarian rhetoric due? Of-fucking-course the article should include an evolution of Trump authoritarian rhetoric to the extent it is supported by reliable sources, as long as it's WP:DUE.
  What're we expected to do with a positive outcome, huh? Go back to arguing endlessly over whether we should include the term facism, or go back to comparing Trump's rhetoric to that of Hitler and his comtemporaries? (Arguing over both is always an option.) What happens if we aren't able to come up with a wording? Since nobody is actually providing sources to back up their implicit claims that including something like this is due, what if someone is able to demonstrate that it isn't?
  Geniunely terrible question in my mind. And, I may just be dumb, but I don't quite understand how we got here. Cessaune [talk] 08:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  Since nobody is actually providing sources to back up their implicit claims that including something like this is due It's been one of the main focuses of scholarship about Trump. From those I brought up earlier (Foa & Mounk, Bauer & Becker, Goodsell, the V-Dem and BLW scholar surveys), to Haggard and Kaufman [8], to Fukuyama's recent works about the threat to meritocracy and expertise posed by a dismantling of the non-partisan administrative state ("deep state"), Liberman et al. [9], Mickey et al. [10], and Goodsell who discusses the damage Trump has already done to US institutions [11] (actions, not words). And entire books, from Mounk's The People Vs. Democracy, to Levitsty and Ziblatt's How Democracies Die (4,000 citations in just 4 years), How to Save a Constitutional Democracy [12], Sunstein's Can It Happen Here? [13], Unmasking the Presidency [14], Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? [15], Backsliding [16], and Abel's upcoming How Autocrats Seek Power [17]. These cover Trump's personal involvement and impact, from mainstream scholars. It's unthinkable that this could be undue. DFlhb (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  So it's due, then. My other points still stand. Cessaune [talk] 16:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• Bad RfC It's not very clear what this RfC is asking. We can't blanket say that all information included in RSes about Trump's rhetoric should be included in the article, as that would clearly run into DUE weight issues. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  Step one (this RFC): reach consensus that his years of authoritarian rhetoric be included (which it never has been)

  Step two: consensus for inclusion in hand, discuss how that inclusion should read soibangla (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  This framework has been tried at least twice with Russian bounties and in-line citations. The former technically resolved two RfC's later with much editor time and trouble. The second hasn't been resolved at all. This approach is either too problematic or ineffective. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 02:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  I acknowledge this approach is challenging and may take weeks/months to fully resolve, but this is a necessary step-wise approach that first requires consensus that any mention of authoritarian rhetoric dating back years be at minimum acknowledged in the BLP. The lack of simple acknowledgement seems to me to be passive POV by omission and it is difficult to fathom how it has been excluded all this time other than by assertive and adamant resistance over years. Does anyone actually deny he has engaged in authoritarian rhetoric for years, as supported by numerous reliable sources, which in the case of any other person would warrant inclusion? soibangla (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Voorts: We never put all RS material into article text. See WP:ONUS. All article content must be NPOV, reflecting significant mainstream views. It appears to me that your !vote was concerned with a contingency that will not occur - at the expense of what is actually being proposed. SPECIFICO talk 14:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  Disagree that step one is necessary or appropriate. Go straight to step two, start an RFC with more specific proposals iff it actually gets deadlocked. Though, I'm not inclined to actually oppose on that basis, starting an RFC to get permission to start a discussion is a waste of time. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  @SPECIFICO, I agree with @Alpha3031. I think an RfC should focus on actual sources and content, rather than the abstract question of whether any sources can be included. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone actually deny he has engaged in authoritarian rhetoric for years Yes, there are. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 14:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• Bad RfC - there's nothing really actionable being proposed here. Having RfC on notions that should be developed without fairly explicit proposals is unhelpful. RfC's are for clearly defined questions. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 02:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  Agree IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• Maybe? I'm unsure what is being proposed here – the statement is vague and devoid of context. Are we talking about including Trump's authoritarian rhetoric at all or about some kind of graphic timeline? Cremastra (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  Cremastra This RFC seeks consensus to include mention of the evolution of his authoritarian rhetoric, and with that consensus in hand we can later hammer out the language. It does not seek consensus for a blank check for inclusion of what any editor chooses. As it stands, there has never been mention of his authoritarian rhetoric in this BLP. soibangla (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  If certain rhetoric failed inclusion because it was never brought up, that would be one thing, but if it failed inclusion for failing to meet consensus on policy guidelines, then with the way this RfC is positioned, I can see how it would make some editors nervous "as if it were seeking consensus for a blank check for inclusion of what any editor chooses"...Would it be possible to point us to these previous discussions (in the archive?), or perhaps narrow it down to rhetoric with the most WEIGHT? DN (talk) 09:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as per above.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support My understanding is that this RfC is simply to determine that we should not exclude content about the evolution of Trump's authoritarian rhetoric. Due to the prevalence of RS on the topic, I completely agree that it should not be excluded from the article. Including it in other pages is fine, but it also needs to be included here per WP:DUE (Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, this is clearly a significant viewpoint as shown by the sources provided above). I empathize with those saying it is bad RfC, as this probably wouldn't have to be done on almost any other article in the encyclopedia. But Trump's article is a special outlier, and it is handled a lot more carefully, so I think this is a decent RfC to lay the groundwork for important content. How to include it is another question that will take a lot of further discussion. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, Bad RfC: This is incredibly vague and I feel like if passed could result in conflict over additions or removals under the guise of "but there's consensus". Please self-close and reopen a more specific RfC. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 14:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose This RfC is quite vague. — Sadko (words are wind) 14:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  Regardless of whether it's an exemplary RfC question, the more vague it is, the less objectionable any outcome. @Soibangla: has explained the reason for the unconventional wording, in light of the prior discussion above the RfC. Just to be clear about your view, @Sadko:, I presume you do not "oppose" addition of such content to the article, but just oppose the affirmation of any consensus before sources and text are established? SPECIFICO talk 16:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  That's correct. — Sadko (words are wind) 17:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Sadko: may we get you to elaborate on your position, please. Short answers, doesn't help much. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  Opening a new RfC, which won't be vague, is going to do the trick. — Sadko (words are wind) 06:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  Depends. A vague RFC in a contentious area is likely to be counterproductive. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  ...the more vague it is, the less objectionable any outcome—maybe, but I think consensus item #58 shows that less objectionable ≠ better. I'd much rather have in hand a consensus to include a specific wording as opposed to a consensus to include some mention of his alleged authoritarianism. This is just an intermediate step that could've and should've been skipped, methinks. The RfC was premature and more people should've advocated for specific wordings before we started this. Cessaune [talk] 06:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per the above. Vague RfC question, possible WP:SYNTHESIS problems, etc. Some1 (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
• Bad RfC You need to explain what specifically you plan to say. And there is already information about Trump's rhethoric in the article. TFD (talk) 17:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (II)

I think one problem is that most editors here wish the guy would step on a Lego. I know I do. So we really want to bend over backwards to be fair. It's hard. It's hard for our sources to be fair. It's hard to find anyone who doesn't have an opinion about the guy. But I mean they guy gets millions of people to vote for him. Alan Dershowitz likes him. National Review likes him. Lot of intelligent people like him. Lot of famous popular talking heads like him. We'd have to use those as sources to say "but on the other hand, many analysts don't believe his rhetoric is getting more authoritarian, but rather that the liberal press is pushing that narrative", or "many analysts point out that this may be just the sort of thing the country needs" or "but many analysts have averred that Joe Biden's rhetoric is even worse" or whatever it takes to not lead the reader to any particular opinion. Otherwise we're not doing our job right. Best to just leave it out. Herostratus (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

many analysts don't believe his rhetoric is getting more authoritarian -- RS? That be who? SPECIFICO talk 04:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I dunno, Sean Hannity maybe? People like that. And everyone is a pretty reliable source for their own opinions. So the issue is standing not reliability. My Uncle Dwight doesn't have standing (expertise and notability) to be quoted here. Sean Hannity does.

Sure, you can presume that these people just say they don't believe it, or that they're too uninformed to have standing, or that they're self-serving propaganda shills who are too biased and involved to have standing... But those are personal presumptions, while the facts are that lots of people watch Sean Hannity and his ilk, and read Laura Ingraham and her ilk, and so on. And you could say these same things about Anderson Cooper and so forth, and they we don't have any sources and just need to drop the whole line of inquiry. I know, I know; we know what the real deal is here. But if we start operating on "c'mon, we know what's going on here" we're going down a bad path. I don't read people like Hannity myself, but I'm sure you could dig up instances of them saying stuff like this or close enough without much trouble. Herostratus (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I requested a source for the statement quoted in green. It's important tofollow the Fox/right-wing media closely. I read and watch them several times a week. It helps me recognize many of the misapprehensions that underlie a good third of the views expressed on various talk pages. But your reply is unresponsive. Hannity is cited several times on this page, to the extent that his words and actions are established as noteworthy by RS. SPECIFICO talk 20:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO, I'm not going to put down my scrod and go get proof that Sean Hannity is notable, or that the Moon is real, or anything like that, before we talk amongst ourselves about these things. So don't ask. You yourself believe that he's notable, so it looks like you're just stalling so that you don't have to think up a good argument on the merits, which there isn't one.

We also don't need RELIABLE sources to figure if someone is notable enough to quote someone, so stop with the RS stuff. Sean Hannity is notable enough of course, but there are other people who are borderline notable enough, I'm sure. For our own deliberations and decisions about whether to make an editorial choice to quote them we have have much looser standards about where to get our info to determine "Hey, is this guy famous enough to quote, or not?", including our own experiences ("I see this guy's face every time I turn on the TV") than if we are writing about them.

I get that this isn't written down anywhere (I guess), but what does that have to do with the price of eggs? We're trying to publish an encyclopedia. We have to think on our own on many matters.

I don't have specific sources at hand for "many analysts don't believe his rhetoric is getting more authoritarian" cos I don't care to get them right now, but c'mon, are you saying that without me giving you a source you personally aren't sure that Trump has supporters? Or if so that they haven't gone on record saying his rhetoric is not getting more authoritarian, or words to that effect? Or if so they've only done so in obscure venues rather than national TV and websites? Or if so that we somehow can't get access to these notable websites or tapes/transcripts of these notable TV appearances? Nah you don't believe any of that, so why ask for proof, here, in this disussion. C'mon dude.

So yes we can and must include these rebutalls presented fairly and without leading the reader. Let the reader read the article and then make up her own mind about this stuff. Herostratus (talk) 07:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

What precisely is being proposed here? Seems vague. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 08:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I expected the discussion above to switch to brainstorming and discussing specific additions; instead we had 200+ comments of mostly talking about sources but not proposals; and now a RfC that is too vague to be 'binding' because any proposed additions can still be disputed as "not what was asked in the RfC". And since no proposal or sources are presented here, the RfC will draw editors that haven't seen any of the sources above and may still not know whether it's 'media hysteria' or scholarly analysis. DFlhb (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I've yet to see a method that works very well for something like this. But editors could defer their !votes until specifics have been hammered out in this subsection. That is, editors who aren't dead set against any content in this article under any circumstances. We (plural you) might come up with, say, three options, with sources, and each !vote could Oppose all or Support one of them (or rank-support one or more of them). I don't think it's particularly fair or practical to expect the OP to do all that. (One might say the options should have been established separately before starting the RfC, but I don't know that it really matters. The only difference is structural.) ―Mandruss ☎ 08:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Reconsidering the preceding, editors deferring their !votes is not feasible for multiple reasons. My suggestion now is: (1) cancel this RfC, (2) work out three options separately, and (3) start a new RfC with those options. Or, try the non-RfC route. Soibangla, what think you? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can propose three options, but my experience with another contentious RFC is if editors are given specific options, the options tend to morph and blend and mutate and splinter into even more options and then the whole discussion disintegrates into chaos and the RFC fails. There seems no perfect way to approach this, so my objective of this RFC was to at least establish consensus that something about his rhetoric belongs in the article. Never has the BLP included anything about his authoritarian rhetoric that has been widely reported for several years, and which has clearly escalated more recently. At minimum, the BLP needs two sentences about this. It is a significant aspect of his persona and it must be included, some way, some how. We must not ignore the elephant in the middle of the room, however distasteful it might be to some. Because any mention of his authoritarian rhetoric has never been included in the BLP, our first hurdle is to achieve consensus that it should be, then we can discuss how the language should read.soibangla (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC) soibangla (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

my objective of this RFC was to at least establish consensus that something about his rhetoric belongs in the article. I get it, I assumed that was your intent. I've tried that once or twice myself, and I got the same pushback that you're getting here. Too many editors, including very experienced ones, fail to understand that another consensus would be required for the precise text. Apparently, they think a Support consensus here would be handing you or somebody else a blank check, granting carte blanche.

All the morph and blend and mutate and splinter should take place in the discussion that develops the options. I've seen this work multiple times, provided you don't try to make everybody completely happy. "Perfect is the enemy of good" should be the governing principle. Then, during the RfC, you need to make it clear up front that further tweaking of the options is not allowed. They can Support one or more options or risk having no content at all.

It's a long and time-consuming process, it could easily take two months, it might seem absurd to spend that much time on two or three sentences, but this is one case where I think it's worthwhile. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, this RFC seems way to vague to make an informed decision on. Could we not get some more specific proposal of text to be inserted? Passing a generic mandate to "add something" without a clear way how sounds like a recipe for time wasting. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, if this were President Biden's rhetoric? I'd oppose its addition on the Joe Biden page. GoodDay (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I am aghast at the dereliction of editorial responsibility in the repeated failure, over a number of years, to add any information on Trump's authoritarian, fascistic, and now dictatorial tendencies. to the encyclopedia article in clear terms. Here is a selection of reference list culled from a longer biblioghraphy of nearly 100 recent reliable sources on this topic, easily establishing notability. It's as if we are failing to discuss one of the most notable and widely discussed aspects of the article topic in the article. Remember, if Trump wins the 2024 election, there will be no 2028 election.67.82.74.5 (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

67.82.74.5 (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

If Trump is elected in 2024, there'll be no election in 2028? According to the US Constitution, a presidential election is held every four years. GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Just empty rhetoric, saying that a re-elected Trump will be able to turn himself into a king, eliminating the need for presidential elections. It reads 0.00 on my calibrated probabil-o-meter. Carry on. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

yeah, according the US Constitution[18][19][20][21] soibangla (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I would appreciate a response from GoodDay and Mandruss, lest this be conveniently ignored. soibangla (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I read over the media's coverage. It would require an amendment passed by both Houses of Congress & adoption by 38 of 50 states, to make the 2024 prez election, the last prez election. Trump wasn't going to leave office after being defeated by Biden. But guess what? Biden took office. GoodDay (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The comment "if Trump wins the 2024 election, there will be no 2028 election" is an opinion and original research. However, I do believe we should mention Trump's authoritarian statements and rhetoric that have been gaining more scholarly attention in the article, and perhaps discuss Trumpism as well. However, we should most definately not put the sentence "if Trump wins the 2024 election, there will be no 2028 election" in the article itself. BootsED (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@GoodDay: You clearly did not read "the media's coverage" or you would not continue to misrepresent the issue and waste electrons on anodyne and irrelevant chat about the constitutional process of amendment. This needs to stop. Please respond to the arguments and views that have been presented by other editors and refrain from posting when you have nothing constructive to say. SPECIFICO talk 18:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I have indeed read & watched mainstream media's coverage, including Joe Scarborough's emotional outburst. If President Biden were under media scrutiny for his rhetoric? I'd also oppose such additions if proposed for the Joe Biden page. In the end, if this RFC proposals are adopted? then so be it. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

If you think that watching some MSNBC show constitutes knowing RS narratives, that is wrong. And you need to stop throwing up straw man nonsense like "If Joe Biden..." and dozens of others. SPECIFICO talk 20:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

You're lecturing again. I won't be responding to anymore of your posts directed at me, concerning this RFC's proposal. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I recommend all editors read Project 2025 in great depth, lingering on every word of it. Real slow. soibangla (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Already read the page. Highly doubt it'll be fully implemented, even if Trump becomes the 47th US president & Republicans become the majority in the House & Senate. Each of us (of course) will come to different conclusions. GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

what's with the 47th US president? sniff sniff soibangla (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Although I would not say "if Trump wins the 2024 election, there will be no 2028 election", it could happen. It would require that he gain cooperation of the military. But he'd have four years to do so. Marshall law has been declared 68 times in the US. But this is a distraction unless we start seeing it in RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

After re-calibrating my probabil-o-meter, it now reads 0.01. Btw, unless you mean Thurgood, that's martial law. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I'd say 0.02. I'm not !voting in this. But the rhetoric is becoming more and more scary. Two high-level foks in the Trump admin this week said they intend to arrest journalists. Keep in mind that most dictators in recent history were elected. As i said, this is a distraction unless we start seeing it in RS. Let me change that to more in RS as it is appearing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

to this point I have refrained from presenting all the reliable sources reporting this as it's tedious work and I'm not confident it will sway some/many, but maybe I'll have to go that way soibangla (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Re whether there would be a 2028 election, it wouldn't sway anybody. Their opposition is not about the seriousness of the threat. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

this RFC is not about whether there would be a 2028 election. the assertion there wouldn't be was made by one editor soibangla (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that most editors simply don't know what's been written in RS books and scholarly commentary. Unsupported opinion doesn't need reply. SPECIFICO talk 02:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Just want to throw this out there, here is a recent AP article that specifically states, "Trump himself has been vowing “retribution” against his enemies and ramping up his use of violent and authoritarian rhetoric, including saying he would only be a dictator on “day one” of his second term." Yet another RS that states that Trump did indeed say he would be dictator on day one of his presidency, and has been saying increasingly violent and authoritarian rhetoric. BootsED (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Likely not the first time, Trump's sought attention. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic - open at your peril. SPECIFICO talk 17:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, Soi, but I lack the attention span for all the reading you're asking of me. Only partly because I've been up for some 30 hours. How about throwing me a bone and pointing me directly to one (1) respected scholarly source that thinks there is even the slightest risk of what that bolded statement says. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC) what bolded statement? soibangla (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC) Remember, if Trump wins the 2024 election, there will be no 2028 election. Isn't that what you "would appreciate" a response from me about? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC) no soibangla (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC) lol. Well ok. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC) no, really. no. up 30 hours, you say? well ok soibangla (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC) Mandruss by misattributing me, you have just illustrated why these discussions go off the rails and cause RFCs to fail soibangla (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC) Oh, how I wish I knew what you're talking about. I have reviewed my comments and I don't see any attribution of you, let alone misattribution of you. I do see myself spending a ton of time trying to help make this effort work, if not specifically in this RfC. And you were and are free to do things your way, no matter what I said. I'll know better next time, maybe. For whatever you feel I did to offend you, I apologize. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC) Presumably they were referring to the "if Trump wins the 2024 election, there will be no 2028 election" quote. That was my statement, not Soibangla's. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC) Oh. Thanks for your insight. Well in that case I'd be interested to see the diff where I said it was his statement. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC) Perhaps we should just move on. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 04:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC) Since no such diff exists, there's nothing left to do but move on. I don't need an apology. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC) "I don't need an apology" hah! soibangla (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC) This seems a bit childish, so @67.82.74.5 wrote - Remember, if Trump wins the 2024 election, there will be no 2028 @Soibangla wrote - I would appreciate a response from GoodDay and Mandruss, lest this be conveniently ignored. @Mandruss wrote - Remember, if Trump wins the 2024 election, there will be no 2028 election. Isn't that what you "would appreciate" a response from me about? (bold by me) So if theres a misunderstanding, just explain it instead of making snarky remarks at one another, will be a better use of everyone's time. I wuld recommend collapsing this portion of the conversation once that misunderstanding is settled. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC) I did not write the bolded statement and I did not request your response to the bolded statement soibangla (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC) I will try to clarify what appears to be the misunderstanding and then, please, let's move on. I stated "Remember, if Trump wins the 2024 election, there will be no 2028 election" in support of the importance and notability of covering this topic. Mandruss replied that this was improbable and empty rhetoric and GoodDay said that this was impossible according to US constitution. Soibangla then posted 4 references showing Trump calling for the termination of the US constitution and "all rules and regulations" (in response to the whopping nothingburger of the Twitter files, of all things) and claiming that he was entitled to additional terms. Soibangla also asked for reply from GoodDay and Mandruss on these links. Mandruss asked if Soibangla was looking for a response on my comment that if Trump wins the 2024 election, there will be no 2028 election. Hilarity and misunderstanding ensued. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi everyone, there is a similar rfc to this one currently happening on the Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign talk page. I want to post this in a relevant place without bias so everyone can see and comment. BootsED (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic about an instance of Legobot weirdness. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Why does this RfC have two ids (rfcid=6AAEDEB}}rfcid=8CD1F7B}})? The second one shows up as text in the RfCs, e.g. here, along with a long comment by IP address editor 67.82.74.5. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC) Not sure who done it, but it was accidental. I've removed it. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC) I assume the legobot will eventually catch up with the correction? The second id seems to mess with the way other entries are shown on the RfC pages (e.g. here and here). Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC) Hope so. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC) The pages have been fixed. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 18:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC) See related User talk:Redrose64#Legobot weirdness. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC) Is pinning necessary? The bot already "pinned" the RfC: "DoNotArchiveUntil]] 12:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)". Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 19:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC) {{pin section}} generates {{DNAU}} but offers two advantages over plain DNAU: It generates a visible message box as a reminder that the section will not be auto-archived. Its DNAU expires in ten years versus one month for the DNAU inserted by Legobot. Therefore there is zero risk of having the section auto-archived before we're done with it. Restoring from archive is a bitch unless you can do it early enough to use undo, so it's best to avoid that whenever possible. This of course means the {{pin section}} has to be manually removed when we're done with the section, but that's no problem and some closers even do that themselves. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

A bit of irony from today's NYTimes:

When a historian wrote an essay the other day warning that the election of former President Donald J. Trump next year could lead to dictatorship, one of Mr. Trump’s allies quickly responded by calling for the historian to be sent to prison.

The article is on point for this discussion.[22] O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Which links to a relevant article series in the Atlantic:

The Atlantic published a special issue with 24 contributors forecasting what a second Trump presidency would look like, many of them depicting an autocratic regime.

DFlhb (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Authoritarianism and fascism are not a matter of rhetoric. If I talk as though I am a dictator that doesn't make me a dictator of anything. The thrust of this proposed edit seems to be build a case against Trump that he is authoritarian or even fascist. It is similar to the Lafayette Square issue. I don't think this belongs in a encyclopedic biographical article, no matter how many op ed pieces opine.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

If we were talking about only op-ed pieces, you might have a point there. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Sources cited are not "op-eds" and not casual opinion. It is not constructive to mislead the community with straw men. SPECIFICO talk 23:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The thrust of this proposed edit is to include something about his authoritarian rhetoric that reliable sources have extensively reported on for several years, yet this BLP has never included a word about it. soibangla (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be hard to find a reliable source for characterizing his rhetoric. Do their fact-checkers check if their writer's opinions ("Trump is a slob" or "Trump's rhetoric has been sounding more authoritarian lately") are objectively and incontrovertibly true? How would they do that?

We could find a reliable source for how many marriages he has had, when he announced he was running for president, when he graduated high school, etc cos those are objective facts. They're something that a person who hates Trump and a person who supports him could agree if on shown the sources. The same for exact quotes from a speech.

But if 100 writers say "In his last speech, Biden seemed flat and unenthusiastic and didn't make his case very well", that doesn't prove anything about anything. It proves how 100 people feel, and so what.

I guess a test would be if you wrote "Trump's rhetoric has been sounding more authoritarian lately" and gave that to most any fair-minded and informed Trump supporter (yeah I know, but you'd run this as a thought experiment) and showed her the sources for that, and she was like "well boy howdy but you've proven to me that it has; there's no rebutting your source" rather then "This is a nothinburger, the source is cherry-picking a few quotes to prove a point" then yeah I guess you could use the source as a ref for the statement. But good luck with that. Otherwise, just leave it out, or else be like "some analysts say X but other analysts say Y" with equal time given, which is kind of just noise. Herostratus (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia operates. SPECIFICO talk 04:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

why should we carve out an exception for reliance on reliable sources in this specific instance? soibangla (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, I seriously question whether this editor is capable of editing an encyclopedia after proposing as a test for inclusion asking a "fair-minded and informed Trump supporter" what they think about it (thought-experiment or not.) The actual test for inclusion is the consensus of reliable sources; someone who does not know this should not even be chiming in at talk pages, let alone editing the articles. Nor is this problem confined to this one editor. Although most of the oppose votes did not put it in such outrageous terms as this editor, many seem to think we shouldn't put something about Trump's authoritarianism because Trump voters wouldn't agree with it. Of course, this matters 0 percent in constructing an encyclopedia, which is based on a consensus of reliable sources not a polling of the casual views of the masses on what they think on the encyclopedia topic. This attitude has derailed this article for far too long. [Special:Contributions/67.82.74.5|67.82.74.5]] (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

There are many journal articles and peer-reviewed sources that can be used other than op-eds. BootsED (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Split off into a new page

We should be considering a third option, fwiw. Create a new page, for the proposed info. That's if 'page length' is a concern for this BLP. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

We've been considering that for three days at #Time for an article on Trump's alleged authoritarian inclinations and statements? (in which you commented). We should not be considering that in this RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay, if you think that is a good idea, perhaps you could begin drafting the initial version of that paage. However, your comment is off-topic for this page. SPECIFICO talk 23:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

That page was going nowhere fast, was poorly defined, and has been redirected (not by me.) This idea that some editors can keep out serious encyclopedic and scholarly discussion of Trump's authoritarianism from his encyclopedia article by shunting it off to some fork page can now be dismissed. The leg you were standing on that it should go somewhere else rather than on the man's own page is now gone. Trump's authoritarianism is an aspect of the man that has received voluminous discussion. Indeed, it is one of the most notable and written about topics regarding Trump. Its absence from the article is palpable, and makes the page look like an unserious, nonencylopedic whitewash. I can (indeed, I have already done so and posted it) compile a list of 100 sources on this topic from the last several weeks alone, all from reliable, top-quality publications. There is no legitimate argument that a topic as widely discussed as Trump's authoritarianism should not be discussed in the article. If you think the reliable sources are wrong, simply add opposing views from reliable sources, should you be able to find any.67.82.74.5 (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit: The page has since been undeleted, but I reiterate that the existence of that page cannot be used as a WP: Fork to remove discussion of reliably sourced discussion of this topic from the man's own page simply because it is viewed as negative (which I believe many of the "oppose" votes boil down to.) Encylopedic coverage of a topic requires that major controversies regarding a topic to be covered in the article and even in the lead on that topic, not merely forked away. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Now that we've got the Donald Trump's rhetoric page? This section of the discussion can be hatted. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

References

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.

Is it time for a full article on Corruption in the Trump administration?

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.

---

Given the latest damning report on the financial corruption in the Trump administration, (https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/352377138e125817/849dad00-full.pdf https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/04/us/politics/trump-hotels-foreign-business-report.html) is it time for a standalone article on this topic? Recall that Trump's corruption has long been a matter of public interest even prior to this 158-page congressional report and investigation. Surely this topic is noteworthy enough to merit an article. We could possibly title the article Trump corruption scandal but that might be a bit too nonspecific; there have been several Trump corruption scandals. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

More opinion based so no, not necessary. Cwater1 (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, we do not need even more articles about Trump, he was a 1 term president. Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Nope. This is Wikipedia, not Trumpedia. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree with the other comments; corruption is already extensively covered in other multiple articles. A paper written by the Democrats doesn't necessitate another. Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. — Czello ^(music) 15:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment to IP - You do not need permission to draft or to publish a new page. You would need to ensure that your article text is well-sourced and compliant with WP:BLP WP:V and WP:NPOV. The dismissals above should not deter you from trying, although they should make you aware that any proposed article content and the existance of the page itself will receive lots of scrutiny once published. Good luck. SPECIFICO talk 15:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I must admit IP, that such a page would help shorten the length of this BLP, though. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

How? SPECIFICO talk 17:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

You cannot just string together a number of documented accusations and create an article. That would violate many policies. You would need to show there was a body of literature in reliable sources (that does not include Congressional reports, op-eds or analyses in news media.) Such literature would have to address corruption as a whole and tie together all the content you wanted to add.

Considering that such literature does not exist for notoriously corrupt U.S. politicians, that's unlikely to happen. Of course every allegation that has been widely reported can be put into some article.

One possible article you could create would be about Trump and the emoluments clause, which is the subject of the report you linked. In the article you have to explain the dispute over what emoluments means in the U.S. Constitution, the rap sheet that the Democrats prepared and any defenses provided. TFD (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Further to that, the cited NYT article does not say anything about "Trump corruption". We have various pages on Wikipedia that erroneously cobble together various criticisms or complaints and then call them "controversies". This is [[WP:OR|not the basis for a page unless the sources themselves refer to events as "corruption" "controversies" or whatever. SPECIFICO talk 18:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

No, we have more than enough stuff about trump. If we make one about trump we might as well make one about Buden, Obama, and George Washington. LuxembourgLover (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

We don't have to make an article about everything. Cwater1 (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes Anonymous8206 (talk) 11:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

why not post about Bidens corruption too. 35.142.168.30 (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Well for one, so far there is no agreement to create this article. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2024 (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.

Link China trade war in the lead

I'm creating a talk on this because it was requested. I propose to add a backlink to the words "trade war" in the lede that would take the readers to an article [23] on the issue. I don't think there is anything to lose in the way of quality by adding one more backlink and that, au contraire, that it allows readers to learn more about a significant event in Trump's first term. This isn't any hill to die on, obviously, but what does everyone think? TheCelebrinator (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Add it. It's a helpful link, especially considering that China-United States trade war is a bit of a complex item to search for.

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 150#Blue in the lead

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 151#Links in the lead

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive_151#Links in the lede

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 152#Seeking consensus for individual link additions to lead

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 152#RfC on links in the lead

These are all the discussions directly pertaining to links we've had in the recent-ish past (that I can remember), if you care to go through. Cessaune [talk] 01:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

What's a "backlink"? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

A backlink is a link to redirects you to another page, like this. I don't what you call them, but that's what I meant. TheCelebrinator (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh. There are two basic kinds of links:

• A wikilink, often shortened to "link", used to link to any page on Wikipedia using just its page title, as: China–United States trade war or User talk:TheCelebrinator. Edit this section to see how to code a wikilink.
• An external link, used to link to any page on the web using a complete URL, as: [24]. This can also be used to link to pages on Wikipedia, and you've done that twice in this thread, but wikilink is usually preferred.

("Redirect" is a different thing entirely, but that's not covered until Wikipedia Editing 103. :)) ―Mandruss ☎ 14:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I would definitely use a wikilink and not an external link. Cessaune [talk] 17:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to add a wikilink. Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Opposed — overciting. The sentence already contains three wikilinks, and those three are part of consensus #60 while the "trade war" isn't. The proposed wikilink trade war is an Easter egg, displaying Trade war while unexpectedly taking the reader to a different page. Helpful link — that argument has been made about pretty much every other word in the lead. The lead is supposed to summarize the body: let's keep the links in the body. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, "easter egg" links are fairly common policy on Wikipedia. Would the reader, who's not necessarily an experienced Wikipedian, "expect" to be linked to the actual article with the name? I doubt it, but if you want, we can change the link to the actual article. TheCelebrinator (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, trade war is a little eggy. How about initiated a trade war?

Consensus to include (which is what consensus item #60 is: a consensus to add links to the lead) does not preclude further discussion.

The sentence already contains three wikilinks is IMO a very arbitrary reason to oppose adding a link.

The lead is supposed to summarize the body: let's keep the links in the body—what? What does this even mean? Can you elaborate? Cessaune [talk] 22:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Helpful link — that argument has been made about pretty much every other word in the lead. Yes. It's less useful to think about these things as isolated single cases than in terms of the longer-term picture. The very same reasoning used for inclusion of this link would ultimately result in a negation of consensus #60. Further, if a reader isn't interested enough to read the relevant part of the body, they probably aren't interested enough to follow a link about China–United States trade war. If they do read the relevant part of the body, they will find a link there.

Further yet, as has been stated in previous discussions, links in the lead encourage readers to bypass the body of this article. Their usual path should be lead→body→other articles, not lead→other articles (and they can stop after lead→body if they've read enough). Consensus #60 allowed some links in the lead, an apparent compromise that unhelpfully undermines this last principle, and we shouldn't go from bad to worse. On this basis, you won't see me supporting any new link in the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to address the points you make because I disagree very strongly.

The very same reasoning used for inclusion of this link would ultimately result in a negation of consensus #60—I'm confused. Consensus #60 was a consensus to include; the consensus was to "[i]nsert the links described in the RfC January 2023". Are you suggesting that this consensus item precludes addition of new links, barring the creation of a new consensus item or something?

Further, if a reader isn't interested enough to read the relevant part of the body, they probably aren't interested enough to follow a link about China–United States trade war. If they do read the relevant part of the body, they will find a link there. Are we simply forcing the reader to scroll down? If a reader was truly interested in reading about the China-US trade war, I feel like we would be forcing them to read a vague two-sentence blurb about the trade war just to click on the same link they would've clicked on if it was in the lead.

...links in the lead encourage readers to bypass the body of this article. Their usual path should be lead→body→other articles, not lead→other articles (and they can stop after lead→body if they've read enough). Does it really matter? Why do we care? Is the point to get people to read this specific article, or to get people to read one of the many Trump-related articles of similar quality and infinitely more detail? Also, who defines what someone's "usual path" should be? Is there a guideline/policy I'm unaware of?

Consensus #60 allowed some links in the lead, an apparent compromise that unhelpfully undermines this last principle, and we shouldn't go from bad to worse. Consensus #60 wasn't a compromise in any way, because that's not really how that RfC worked—a rough consensus of editors agreed that something needed to be added, while a separate, smaller group disagreed, and, ultimately, the add these ten links at least group prevailed. Hell of a one-sided compromise. Also, "bad to worse" so matter-of-factly is a weird statement. Who decided that the current number of links in the lead is a factually bad thing, or that adding more is somehow factually worse? The RfC doesn't suggest this at all. Cessaune [talk] 05:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, apparently our thinking styles are different. For example, I don't necessarily need a guideline/policy to make a reasoned argument (there is no guideline/policy supporting the consensus list, by the way, and yet we did it and it has helped immeasurably). If readers are encouraged to bypass our body, what's the point of writing it? Our body provides an intermediate level of detail between our lead and other articles, and that's likely to be just about right for many readers. It makes a lot of sense to encourage readers to read it before going elsewhere if they want even more detail, and lead links do the opposite. And so on; I won't respond point-by-point as it's unlikely to bear fruit. Your Support !vote is noted and will count for as much as my Oppose. If you convince more editors than I do, the link will be included and I'll just live with it. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

That said, I'll respond a bit about #60. As I understand it (I didn't participate and could be wrong), the intent of #60 was to reduce linking in the lead (with some editor opinion that it should be eliminated completely, as per my argument above). By "negating" #60, I meant that we would end up with as many links as we had before the reduction. (Space4T's article-side editing activity suggests that he concurs with this analysis; he's a smart dude.) I still don't care to debate this further, but I hope this provides some clarification of my comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:12, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Would we really stand to lose much from adding one more wikilink to that paragraph? The number currently sits at 10, so one more makes it 11. Even if that were to represent a major shift, wouldn't the importance of the trade war, as a signature event of Trump's first term, be relevant enough to at least make a link to? We already mention it in the lede, might as well go the full way and wikilink it. TheCelebrinator (talk) 10:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

With due respect, I don't see how you could post that comment (as a reply to me) after reading my comments. It's highly unlikely I'll be swayed, but certainly not by arguments that I've already countered. The number currently sits at 10, so one more makes it 11. Correct, thanks for the math help. Now repeat that ten times, and you have 21. The larger the number gets, the easier it becomes to add just one more – the 11th link is a 10% increase, and this falls incrementally to 5% for the 21st, 3.3% for the 31st, and so on until the percentage increase becomes insignificant. Then the world ends. Both Space4T and I have already made this point, if not in those exact words.

How is your link substantially more important than the next six editors' links to bankruptcies, Republican Party, populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist? (As if that would be the end.) I made this point in the second sentence of my opening comment, following the sentence "Yes." It's less useful to think about these things as isolated single cases than in terms of the longer-term picture. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

That's a slippery slope fallacy. If we do this, we'll do that and then this and so on and so forth. Nobody has advocated adding any more links on this thread. Even if we add this link, there'd still be a discussion required for adding any other link. To be clear, I am not advocating for adding any other ones. Let's thus stick to the merits of the case here and avoid fallacious reasoning.

Now looking at the paragraph I'm proposing to edit, an example of a link here is "individual health insurance mandate," which takes the reader to a generic article explaining what it is. Now, that's fine from a pedagogical/educational perspective, but every other wikilink here specifically mentions a Trump policy/event or person connected with him. In fact, that's the lone example of a wikilink that redirects to a generic and not a specific article.

Thus, I propose that, if you want to keep the number of links at 10, that we remove said wikilink—as it's the only one not redirecting to any specific article—and replace it with the trade war link re: the current dispute. There's even a blue print for it: ordered a travel ban / initiated a trade war. Of course, I think we ought to keep both, but, as a compromise, would that suit you? TheCelebrinator (talk) 18:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Slippery-slope arguments are not fallacious when based on empirical evidence, actual historical fact. We regularly see editors trying to add lead links; just recently populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist. So this is not baseless hypothetical arm-waving. As for your offer of a compromise in the form of a link trade, I don't know. Again, I tend to think in big-picture terms (sorry, I can't help it), and a ten-link limit is not something that would hold up in the long term. Editors don't like arbitrary limits or bright lines. For example, on the issue of lead length, it was once proposed that any addition should be accompanied by a removal of roughly equal size. Lead balloon. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Your line of reasoning assumes that adding links is a bad thing. Sure, it would be bad if we were to link every third word. That's not what's being proposed here. In my mind, there is no slippery-slope, because, in a general sense, I don't view the addition of links as negative. If anything, the regularity of attempted link additions by editors that are at least extended-confirmed says something.

If we held an RfC right now on whether we should link things like building a wall, initiated a trade war, etc., I am very confident that it would end in at least rough consensus to add. If we held an RfC on whether we should link things like populist, protectionist, isolationist, or nationalist, I'm less confident that it would end in rough consensus to add, but there's a significant possibility it would. It's things like bankruptcies that won't get linked.

Also, pertaining to one of your above comments, consensus #60 was a consensus to add links, not to remove them, and I'm tired of people treating consensus #60 like it precludes any addition of links. In my mind, Space4T's reverts conflict with consensus #43, but I'm not going to fight them over it. Cessaune [talk] 06:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

As to hypothetical RfCs, prognostication is not argument.

Like I said, I could be wrong about #60. Perhaps Space4T or someone else could add something meaningful. But #60 is a small part of my overall argument. Otherwise, we seem to have irreconcilable philosophical differences; agree to disagree? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Re your comment about #43: It reads, "For edits that do not conflict with existing consensus:". Space4T's last edit summary was: "The link needs to be discussed on the Talk page. See consensus item #60." Whether his rationale regarding #60 was correct or not, that's irrelevant for the purposes of #43. What matters is that Space4T believed it to be correct, and there was no reason to doubt his sincerity or good faith. If his edit summary was simply, "Please discuss first," then I'd have a problem with it and a revert citing #43 would not elevate my eyebrows. We've probably been lax in that area, to what extent I don't know.

If you believe Space4T is misapplying #60, then that's a fair topic for discussion on this page, preferably in a separate thread. Pending the result of such a discussion, it wouldn't be proper (imo) to revert Space4T because you disagree with his rationale, and thank you for not doing so. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't challenge edits to the lead because they haven't been discussed on the Talk page first. I could have worded this particular challenge better by stating the reason (#60) first and then inviting the editor to discuss the proposed change on the Talk page, so my apologies for any resulting misunderstandings. As for the slippery slope, that ship has sailed, or, rather, that toboggan is well on its way down. Per #60's RfC closing, a consensus has emerged to implement Option 1, which is to insert the 10-ish links described in the proposal, i.e., add them to the 15 that weren't contested (links to President of the United States, Hillary Clinton. Joe Biden, etc. I just counted 34 links, 11 of them in the fourth paragraph (I'd vote for removing all 11 and wikilinking "As president" to Presidency of Donald Trump — much easier on the eyes). The lead is the summary of a body that is mostly summary-level. This is the SEAOFBLUE version before the attempted clean-up last year, and this is the "semi-clean" version before the RfC. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

As for the slippery slope, that ship has sailed, or, rather, that toboggan is well on its way down. (Yes, it's important to find the apt metaphor, especially around Christmas.) I'm not prepared to give up the ghost completely until there is a talk page consensus that forces me to do so. This issue of reader steering is too dear to my heart. I probably won't be doing any reverts, but I'll continue to voice opposition in discussions like this one, probably using copy-and-paste (I doubt I could articulate the argument any better). ―Mandruss ☎ 14:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The main difference is that the links you cited refer purely to concepts or notions, they're supposed to provide definitions of a word. My proposed link refers to an event, which I argue is more important to explain than a mere word.

I agree that a "ten-link limit" is an arbitrary line, but I proposed it as a way to avoid overlinking. It's perfectly possible to just add mine and bring up the total number to 11, like I propose, but if you're worried about adding any more links to prevent a slippery slope, then having a "bright red line" would be a compromise. At the very least, if we do the "link-trading solution" I proposed, would you support it in principle at least? TheCelebrinator (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I threw those links together without much thought, as a sort of rhetorical device. Didn't intend them to be taken so literally, I was just trying to illustrate a point. No doubt there are a number of better examples.

In the context of the long term, which is what I referred to, any "bright line" is not something you and I can agree on "privately" to be applied only in this case. I was talking about a lasting "rule", which, as I said, would never fly. would you support it in principle at least? Not sure what you're saying. Can I support it in principle and continue to oppose it in practice? If so, sure. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, since those examples had so much in common, I figured they were as good as any. My point stands. Event > Concept in terms of importance.

Right now, the consensus is that we have those 10 links in that paragraph. There's no rule that forbids adding any further link. The long term solution is to just debate the merits of adding each wikilink on their own. However, you seem to think that's just inviting other people to add their own links, and we'd then end up with a sea of blue.

I'm not sure I get your position here. Do you think we should stick to a(n) (in)formal wikilink limit, or that it's OK to add more? We can't have it both ways. TheCelebrinator (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

There's no rule that forbids adding any further link. Correct, and I haven't claimed any such rule. The long term solution is to just debate the merits of adding each wikilink on their own. No editor is bound by your idea of a proper perimeter for debate on this issue. My main opposition is about the reader steering issue, which applies to all new links, regardless of any merits seen by their supporters. So, as I said previously, I'll oppose any new link. That's obviously not to say I'll prevail every time, or any time, but a series of ten consecutive losses won't prevent me from continuing to oppose (until, as I said, a talk page consensus forces me to stop). This does not constitute an express "wikilink limit"; far from it. It's just one editor's position. The steering issue is not all-or-nothing. It's undermined by any lead links, but that's not a reason to stop opposing new ones that would make the problem even worse. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I get the feeling you think this discussion bears on more than your single link; it does not. Maybe that's where we're getting hung up. When I say I'll oppose any new link, I mean one at a time, individually, as discussions like this one come up. I'm not looking for a consensus against new links in the lead, as that would be outside the scope of this discussion. If I wanted to do that, it would be in a separate thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright, that's your position, but the thing is, reader steering would also presumably apply to every existing wikilink. You can't just remove the concept of wikilinking, I don't think you'd want that. That'd be too extreme. So would having too many wikilinks. Got to have a balance.

However, as I've said, this discussion only concerns adding one prospective link, not potentially adding more. You yourself said "this discussion [does not bear] on more than [my] single link", so worrying about a slippery slope shouldn't be factor. You weren't even able to give me any concrete examples of other editors seeking to add their own WikiLeaks, which implies that those attempts are far less frequent than you make it out to be.

There is a majority support for adding this link. I think the consensus is clear. TheCelebrinator (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

reader steering would also presumably apply to every existing wikilink. You can't just remove the concept of wikilinking... If you believe that, you don't understand the reader steering issue as I've described it in this discussion. It's affected only by lead links. Try a re-read of the second paragraph of my Oppose !vote, my first "contribution" to this discussion, way up there. Not that I'd expect an understanding of it to change your position. Here's where the slippery slope comes into play: It's undermined by any lead links, but that's not a reason to stop opposing new ones that would make the problem even worse. The fact that this particular discussion applies to only one link is beside that point. I'm thinking it's about time for you and I to agree to disagree, too.

I think the consensus is clear. Not. Casting out two editors who dropped in one-liners and didn't otherwise participate, I read it as two to two. Or, if you include them, 2.5 to 2.5. Slatersteven's Seems reasonable to add a wikilink. isn't even really an argument, but I'm generously giving him 0.5 on the Support side. GoodDay bolded Neutral and then argued Weak Oppose, declining to fix the discrepancy when it was pointed out. If there is no clearer consensus in a couple of weeks (patience is a wikivirtue), then we can talk about what to do; but "no consensus" generally means "no change". ―Mandruss ☎ 17:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright, so that's 3 Ayes, 2 Nays and one 'present' vote. That's 60% in favour, but if you think that's too small a sample size, perhaps we ought to just poll everyone and see what happens. I think that'd be for the best too as we've exhausted each other's arguments. TheCelebrinator (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

No, it's 3 Ayes and 3 Nays, or 2.5 and 2.5, depending on how you score it. GoodDay's brief comment is at least as good as Slatersteven's briefer one, going a tad further than "seems reasonable"; and it's the comment that matters, not the bolded word. But we're splitting hairs; yes, any way you cut it, it's too close a margin for such a small sample size.

I'm not getting a warm fuzzy about a poll/survey. Not a lot of editors have been exposed to the reader steering concept. Survey participants would need to read at least the relevant parts of this discussion and expend some effort to comprehend the concept, and experience tells me few of them would do that (even if asked to do so). The only remaining Opposes would be editors who just don't want any more blue in the lead. Thus, a survey would unfairly skew the result in favor of Support, and I know you're a fine, upstanding citizen who wouldn't intentionally do that. I say let's wait a couple of weeks and see where we're at then. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

A neutral vote doesn't count as either an Aye of a Nay, it's just that–a neutral vote.

I don't see anybody else contributing. Most people, I'd imagine, have already made up their minds already. I know you certainly have. Maybe we can wait until New Year or a little bit after, but there's no point in waiting more than that. There's more important things than debating a wikilink, IMO. I won't make any prédictions as to the outcome of a vote. TheCelebrinator (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Neutral - Do we want another wiki-link added to the lead? Isn't the link in the China sub-section, enough? GoodDay (talk) 05:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  Your comment suggests Oppose, or at least Weak Oppose. But what's the point of a Neutral !vote? Every editor reading this thread and not commenting is neutral. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  I don't believe there'll be a consensus for the proposed wiki-link. Particularly when there's already such a link, later in the article. GoodDay (talk) 06:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the opinion/prediction. Unresponsive to my point, but carry on. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Would it be possible to create a poll and see what the outcome would be? I feel like the discussion period has worn out. TheCelebrinator (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

How many editors were on WP between 21.02 23 December (UTC) and now? At least wait until after New Year. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

BTW, you suggested to possibly replace the wikilink on "ordered a travel ban" with a wikilink on "trade war with China". I would actually support that (the travel ban was overturned by Biden the day he took office while the tariffs weren't) but we can't because the travel ban is part of consensus #60. @Cessaune: you proposed the list of 10. Would you agree to the switch? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure. Cessaune [talk] 20:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I would too. I think if you'd be in favour of that, then that's 4–1 people agreeing. Much stronger majority for consensus. TheCelebrinator (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

May we close one of the two discussions down? It's kinda confusing having related discussions occurring concurrently. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd favor closing this pending the result of the other. If the other proposal failed, we could re-open and resume where we left off. We could pin this so it's not auto-archived in the meantime. I'm not feeling bold enough to do that without more support. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Section links

Section links might solve all this. Cessaune [talk] 15:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Good, now we're thinking outside the box. If memory serves, exactly that has been proposed at this article. Lead links would link to sections in this article, not to other articles. It was shot down because it was new and different, breaking 20 years of precedent. Consistency good, innovation bad. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I just think that people didn't like the way it looked. It was also an accessibility nightmare to click on such small superscript, especially on mobile. Cessaune [talk] 15:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

The ampersands are the same size as the numerals in the superscript cites. We could have added square brackets to make the targets larger. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I just think that people didn't like the way it looked. Right, thanks for the memory refresh. And I just think they didn't like the way it looked because it was new and different. I opined that those same editors wouldn't like the way inline citations looked, if it were proposed as something new. Now that they're ubiquitous and familiar, they look just fine.

But I think a lot of the pushback had to do with introducing something new and unfamiliar to readers, as if online users don't adapt to such changes all the time without skipping a beat. The human brain is designed to adapt to environmental change. Presumably, this article would be different from most or all others on the site for some time, maybe forever. Prioritizing that before everything else is precisely what stifles evolutionary improvements, producing stagnation.

Re accessibility nightmare, I must have missed that part of the discussion (which was occurring on at least two different pages, including, IIRC, one UTP). Using those "squigglies" was not a problem for me on a Windows laptop, and my vision isn't great. One wouldn't need to make out the detail of the "squiggly", they would just need to know that there's something clickable there. So they make slight mouse-pointer adjustments until the "hand" appears, then click. We do that all the time. As for mobile, I know less than nothing about that, having never even owned a smartphone. But, as Space4T has suggested, there are probably solutions to address those concerns, and I don't know how the discussion was allowed to die on that basis. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I seem to be late to the party. IIRC, we're talking about this proposal: Discussion of section references in the lead It's something I had started doing in one of my essays. Is that correct? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

That is correct, although the discussion for that is down below. This is a separate, if albeit somewhat related, discussion. You can voice your support or opposition down there. TheCelebrinator (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)