Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 169

Archive 165

←

Archive 167

Archive 168

Archive 169

Archive 170

Archive 171

→

Archive 175

Consensus 25 and paywalled sources

Re: [1][2][3][4][5]

This consensus-by-edit-war needs to stop. After posting this, I will restore status quo ante pending talk page consensus to include the new content.

This is not an isolated exception case. The same issue exists for all paywalled sources, and there are quite a few. In my experience, Wikipedia does not worry about citing paywalled sources. Readers who do not wish to subscribe are apparently expected to trust that enough editors readers and editors do subscribe to satisfy WP:V. While some readers use citations to easily access "further reading", that is not the purpose of citations.

In any case, this addition does violate consensus 25 and should not be made without first amending that consensus. Process is important. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC) Redacted 15:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Indeed. Besides paywalled sources, there are also printed sources that aren't available online and geo-blocked sources. Paywalled and geo-blocked sources are usually available on the Wayback Machine - many readers are probably familiar with it or, if not, they can ask about the cite on the Talk page. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The relevant policy is at WP:PAYWALL (part of V), by the way. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:PAYWALL is about not rejecting reliable sources that are difficult or costly to access. That is not the issue here. The issue here is whether to make such sources easier to access by using an archived version that is not difficult or costly to access.

For reference, here's the proposed change in the cite.

From this,

Crowley, Michael (September 15, 2020). "Israel, U.A.E. and Bahrain Sign Accords, With an Eager Trump Playing Host". The New York Times. Retrieved February 9, 2024.

to this,

Crowley, Michael (September 15, 2020). "Israel, U.A.E. and Bahrain Sign Accords, With an Eager Trump Playing Host". The New York Times. Archived from the original on November 12, 2020. Retrieved April 29, 2024.

I suggest clicking on the article link in each cite and seeing which is preferable. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

This has been settled by Consensus #25, and it relates not to ease of access of sources but this superlong page being bogged down by becoming even longer. Why should we revisit Consensus #25? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion for consensus item 25 was about use of archived versions when the original version works just as well. That is not the case here. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll concede that #25 did not anticipate this situation. Nevertheless, its letter precludes this addition (the source in question is not dead) and would require amendment. As I previously said, this is not an isolated case and what we're really talking about is adding archive to all paywalled sources or none; there is no rationale for carving out an exception for this case. There are so many paywalled sources (all NYT and all WaPo, just for starters) that the former option would significantly defeat the purpose of #25. Per prior comments, I support the latter option: we don't need this. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I think I've made a good case for the archived link to be included in the cite, as indicated above, and I'll wait to see if there is any support for it. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Bob here. If size is an issue, we should be cutting down on prosesize first and foremost, because that's what actually matters in the long run. Sure, archive parameters make the source code a little more cluttered, but ease of access to sources is more important IMO—I actively click on citations in order to read the source, and, when so many political newspapers are behind paywalls, having an archived version of a source that I can just click on aids efficiency. Cessaune [talk] 00:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Bob here. AFAICT, Bob does not accept that we're talking about far more than this one citation. It helps to be clear about the actual issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Links added by editors to the English Wikipedia mainspace are automatically saved to the Wayback Machine within about 24 hours (WP:PLRT). The stated reason is prevention of link rot but the archiving also provides easy access to paywalled and geo-blocked sources, with or without an archive-url in the cite. We could add a note to the top of the Talk page with the url to the Wayback Machine for readers who are not familiar with it. I don’t see what’s so important about a source for one particular sentence that readers must be able to access it with one click. The issue here is also potentially adding up to 60,000 bytes to the article. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Consensus 25 is fine. I've seen articles nearly double in size in one edit because of this practice of adding archive links for live articles. Properly-sourced content is much more important than providing an extra method of accessing the source. We need to keep our long articles accessible to readers, and archive-link bloat makes it much harder to download them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• FYI, User:Space4Time3Continuum2x made edits like the proposed edit after consensus item #25 was in place. diff diff diff Edit summaries were "Add archive-url (paywalled source)" and "Replace with accessible cites". Those cites are still in the article. 145 171 489 and appear to be the only such type of cites in the article. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Oops — touché. I removed all three. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I just now restored them since they are part of the discussion and have been around for years. Again note that you put them in while Consensus item #25 was in place. You might want to explain that. Also, you might want to explain why you thought improving the accessibility was an improvement back then but you think differently now. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

We have never had a time limit for correction of process errors. And it's entirely unreasonable to expect an editor to remember what was in their mind for a few minutes years ago. If you really need a reason, call it temporary insanity or mere brain fart. So what? To err is human; the difference is that you're erring now. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't remember what I was thinking in 2021 when I made those entries. I don't know where to get ahold of sackcloth or ashes, so mea culpa and the reverted attempts to right the wrong will have to do. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC) Or, maybe, I'm three years older now and know better? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

True. Editors evolve with time. I certainly have. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

What's your point, Bob? Process errors were made years ago, and now you won't allow them to be corrected? Is this supposed to strengthen your position in this discussion? If so, it does not; it merely adds disruption. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Jaysus, really? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Perhaps I'm being naive but the issue seems straightforward. Yet, of course, we are in the realm of the TAW, for Trump Article Warning, whereby Beware and rethink your change! There is rarely a change to an article related to Donald Trump that will not cause heated discussion or even serious controversy.

When the source is not freely available and has not yet been archived, we mark as appropriate the link's url-access. When a source has been archived and the archive is freely available online, we link to both the original, non-freely accessible webpage and to the archive, with the former's url-access properly marked. Whence all the excitement?

P.S. Bob K31416 offered above a simple and elegant example that deserves wide support.

P.P.S. The point of WP:PAYWALL is equally straightforward: Do not be reluctant to use sources that are behind subscription paywalls, only available for a fee, etc. It does not offer any guidance on the marking of sources or using both direct & archived links, because the whole matter is obvious and there is no need for any such guidance. -The Gnome (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Bob and Gnome. The size concerns are overblown. Riposte97 (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Riposte97: It would help if you, Cessaune, Bob K31416, and any others would clarify your positions here. Do you support amending #25 to allow Bob's proposed technique for live paywalled sources, or cancelling #25 entirely? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC) And The Gnome. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I think you're trying to make more of this than it is for me. I had an edit that was reverted and I tried to discuss it in a previous section, and all I got was more reversions without them coming to the Talk page to respond to my points. When in my mind I had given up, another editor restored my edit again and you then started this section. So far it looks like there are 3 other articulate editors here who support my edit. I like that. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I think you're trying to make more of this than it is for me. As I suspected. As I've said, there is no rationale for a single-case change (I see little evidence that the 3 other articulate editors support a single-case change). Unless you can persuasively articulate one, that will never fly, period. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Riposte97, the size concerns are NOT overblown. The article is currently at 411,927 bytes. Allowing archive links for live URLs could easily add 200,000 bytes in one edit. That's a problem for many mobile users, and there are much larger articles that would be impacted even more. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

My memory's fuzzy, but I think 200,000 is way high. In any case, that wasn't the only basis for #25; massive clutter of the wikitext in the edit box was another. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The last few times the bot "rescued n sources and tagged 0 as dead", it added 57,585, 57,586, and 57,577 bytes, respectively. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I was totally guessing based on previous occasions where articles suddenly balooned. If EVERY single ref received this treatment, I doubt I'm very far off. If anything, I'm way too low. Doubling the size could happen. How about someone actually do it as an experiment and immediately self-revert? Then we'd know for sure. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Didn't the bot add archive for EVERY single ref? How so? How about someone actually do it as an experiment and immediately self-revert? If you have the required several free hours, knock yourself out. It's a monumental task without the help of a script. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I was under the impression that this was done with scripts or bots, so not a lot of work. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Right, it was done with a script-based (I assume) bot, and added about 57,000 bytes as shown by Space4T. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Please note that these folks are trying to make an estimate for all live links, which is different from trying to make an estimate for just paywalled live links. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, a point I'm about to make below. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand: Immediately after the latest bot visit, the article had 844 citations and |archive-url= occurred only 304 times. That suggests that I'm full of it. 57,585 / 304 * 844 = 159,874, so you may be closer to right than wrong. Now I haven't a clue what the bot was doing, or how we could ever add archive for everything. Anyway, unless we're talking about a total repeal of #25, this is fairly academic. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The bots added archive-urls to 290+ sources out of the more than 800. I don't think the dead sources that have archive-urls and sources that aren't available online add up to 500+ but is it worth the effort to check? 57,000 additional bytes and the added clutter in the edit box are argument enough for me to keep #25 as is. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

From what I read, the problem discussed in Consensus #25 came about originally when a bot was used to add archived links en masse to all live links, not just paywalled links. I think some here are trying to address a problem that has not occurred, i.e. using a bot to include archived links for only paywalled articles. I'm just looking to make an edit. If you think it requires a change in Consensus #25, then just add that archives for sites requiring registration or subscription is being allowed provisionally, as long as it does not result in excessive archiving. You could probably tweak this text as needed. I think that's about it for me. So long, thanks, and good luck. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I think some here are trying to address a problem that has not occurred, i.e. using a bot to include archived links for only paywalled articles. It's being addressed only because some editors' comments suggest that they oppose #25 outright. I get that you don't. You could probably tweak this text as needed. Sure, if someone can suggest how we would make the decision to include archive parameters or not—beyond "one or more editors want to include them" (I just don't like the omission of the archive parameters). After all this discussion, after multiple requests to do so, you still haven't said what justifies an exception for your case, let alone future others. If you can't do so, perhaps backing away is the wise choice. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Can't think of a reason to carve out an exception for this specific cite. It's got to be all or nothing. Cessaune [talk] 02:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Consider the flip side of the coin you propose. If we did that, it would result in protracted discussions about each new case, with one side always asking, Whence all the excitement? (for evidence of that, we need look no further than #37 and #58, both sufficiently vague as to do more harm than good). That's the opposite of what consensus items seek to achieve, which is to reduce, not create, opportunities for disagreements resulting in protracted discussions. "Beware and rethink your change! There is rarely a change to an article related to Donald Trump that will not cause heated discussion or even serious controversy". That's a fact of life for those who choose to play in this sandbox, but it would be far worse if we didn't use the consensus list to mitigate it. Each item represents something we don't need to spend a lot of time debating, for the most part. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems like a pretty straightforward exception to 25 to say 'except where it assists in bypassing a paywall'. In the current case, doing so has clear utility. Inferring that I or anyone else has argued for a repeal of 25 is a misunderstanding. Riposte97 (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

25. Do not add web archives to cited sources which are not dead or paywalled. Cessaune [talk] 02:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

^ precisely. Riposte97 (talk) 11:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I've been referring to the single-case exception that Bob has sought throughout this debate, essentially saying that we're making a mountain out of a molehill. What you propose is not an exception but an amendment, and I have no problem with an amendment from a process standpoint. I continue to oppose the amendment, for two reasons.

First, it at least has the potential to largely defeat the purposes of #25. Whether we would ever actually add enough archives for that to be a significant problem is beside the point for me; the point is that we could. It's not that hard to imagine an editor getting a wild hair and spending weeks adding archives for every paywalled source in the article, and they would be completely within their right to do so per this amendment. Nobody could even object, let alone stand a chance of prevailing.

Second, it's inconsistent with core principles of WP:V, to wit: (1) paywalled sources are just fine for verifiability, and sources needn't be accessible to everyone to achieve it, and (2) verifiability is the sole reason for citations, despite some readers' and editors' desire to use them to access further reading. Editors who seek to "verify the verifiability" may subscribe to the source or use Wayback Machine without the benefit of the direct link in a citation. Yes, that costs a little money or takes a little more time (less than a minute in most cases), but it beats the alternative in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

For that matter, we could work out a system to share subscriptions to the major source outlets. Not by sharing passwords, which in my opinion would pose ethical problems (essentially stealing), but by making ourselves available to "verify verifiability" for our respective subscribed outlets upon requests from other editors. I'm already subscribed to NYT and have been for years, spending something like $15/mo. I use it almost exclusively as my personal go-to for news, but that could change. The only problem would be that verifiability is not always clear-cut and my idea of verifiability may differ from some others'. I suppose I could copy-and-paste relevant excerpts from the sources where needed.

That said, it might be easier to just use Wayback Machine as per above. It would be faster in most cases, since one wouldn't have to wait for me or another NYT subscriber to show up and handle their NYT request. I dunno; just an idle thought and I'm half tempted to remove. I sometimes can't see the flaws in an idea until I write it. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Such a solution is outside the scope of this discussion IMO. Cessaune [talk] 21:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd disagree if it weren't a bad idea to begin with. Probably should have removed. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I oppose the amendment, too, per article size vs. minor inconvenience, and how many readers are even affected, i.e., read cited sources? Most online publications let you read one or two articles for free (another one or two if you clear the browser cache and close and restart your browser:). That includes current articles in WaPo (subscription currently $70 plus applicale sales tax per year), but they require readers to sign up for a free account if they want to read older articles. The NYT is $8 every 4 weeks, games and recipes not included; I vaguely remember another editor mentioning some time ago that the NYT allows free accounts to read two articles per month. The Wall Street Journal is the big exception, no free articles, and 99.999% of their articles archived on the Wayback Machine are also paywalled. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• FYI, the Biden article seems to have nearly all of the ref links archived. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

And I could point to any number of articles that don't. Other stuff exists, and what editors choose to do at Biden has zero bearing on Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the overall management of the article is better over there. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, we suck. You just can't help yourself. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the subject has a less convoluted and/or controversial bio than this one. Or people keep siccing their favorite bot on the page (#IABot (v2.0.9.5)_1, #IABot (v2.0.9.5)_2) to rescue sources that don’t need rescuing and tag 0 as dead, and nobody has objected because they haven't managed to break the page yet. Many of the 646 cites (180 fewer than this page) don’t have archive-urls, and I don’t really see the point of adding this one, for example. Or what Mandruss said — we suck. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Trump did not graduate Wharton with a degree in Economics

"Donald J Trump graduated Wharton with a B.A. in Real Estate, which was awarded on May 20, 1968" says Ron Ozio, Penn's Director of Media Relations. https://www.phillymag.com/news/2019/09/14/donald-trump-at-wharton-university-of-pennsylvania/ Sam8988378 (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

He graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Economics - see pg. 21 pf in UPenn's 212th Commencement for the Conferring of Degrees, one of the two sources for the degree in our article. Ozio probably meant that Trump's focused area of study (Wharton calls them concentrations) was real estate, or he may have been misquoted. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

North Korea in the lead, again

Riposte97, re this edit. The RfC closing says: There's a rough consensus to include North Korea in the lead, focused on the meetings with Kim and and some degree of clarification that there haven't been clear results of those meetings. I clarified the initial wording of consensus #44 (The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim, and stating that they haven't produced clear results) by including some degree of clarification. During the four years since item #44 was added, it was never interpreted as meaning that we have to use "clear results". (What is #article-section-source-editor referring to?) The lead sentence initially said that "talks on denuclearization broke down in 2019". It was changed to "negotiations on denuclearization eventually broke down" in January 2021, and to the current wording in July 2021. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, any of those previous forms would be more appropriate. Those actually conform with the RfC. The current wording goes further than either the consensus or RS. In saying 'but made no progress on denuclearisation' we seem to contradict the preceding clause - after all, isn't a first meeting a form of progress?

I note that the editor who changed it to the current wording was outvoted in the RfC, and appears to have inappropriately sought to revise the sentence.

Unless there is some objection, I will reinstate the previous wording. Riposte97 (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

There is objection, a revert of it is an objection. Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

isn't a first meeting a form of progress? No. NK halting production and testing would have been progress, NK reducing its arsenal would have been more progress, NK declunearizing would have been success. Those would also have been clear results, IMO and apparently also the opinions of the five editors who made the initial edits (first, second second) and the two revisions (see above). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Just so we're on the same page:

1. initial edit on May 22, 2020 Trump met three times with North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un, but negotiations talks on denuclearization broke down in 2019.
2. correction on May 22, 2020 Trump met three times with North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un, but talks on denuclearization broke down in 2019.
3. edit on January 13, 2021 He met three times with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, but negotiations on denuclearization eventually broke down.
4. edit on July 15, 2021 He met three times with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, but without any progress on denuclearization.
5. edit on July 15, 2021 Trump met three times with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, but made no progress on denuclearization.
6. Your version: He met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times, but those talks yielded no clear results.

I added an edit I missed earlier (#5). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I already said I am fine with those previous forms. In case there is ambiguity in what I wrote above, I am proposing a reversion to either #2 or #3. #1 contains an obvious error. However, we have had an RFC on this. This shouldn't really be up for debate. Riposte97 (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

isn't a first meeting a form of progress? No, it was appeasement. Love letters etc. We kept it short and brief, commensurate with the outcome. For detail see the sub-article. SPECIFICO talk 14:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Look, we already did an RFC on this. You lost. Trying to relitigate it is disruptive. Riposte97 (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Further to the above, I will wait twenty-four hours, then restore the wording of edit #3 above. Riposte97 (talk) 10:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

What RFC? Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The one cited in consensus #44. I quoted the closer's closing summary in full in my first post in this section. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

So all it says is we should mention it, well as your edit does it seems to be complaint with it (by the way I keep seeing "consensus X" what is this referring to, the achieving page?). Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It refers to one of the numbered items in the Current consensus section at the top of this page. Each one has a link, sometimes more than one, to the RfC(s) or discussion(s) which resulted in the consensus. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Does the term "negotiations" apply to Trump's meetings with Kim? In the body we say that no denuclearization agreement was reached, and talks in October 2019 broke down after one day. One of the cites is this scathing NYT article. It talks about "meetings" with "fabulous theatrics" and "talks" that "quickly stalled over how to enforce a vaguely worded agreement". Trump's professed aim was "to negotiate true disarmament, which he predicted would begin imminently", and, instead, he managed to elevate Kim's global status while NK continued to advance its nuclear armament. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Happy for it to say 'but talks on denuclearisation eventually broke down.' Riposte97 (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed at great length - see the talk page archives.

What "talks"? The WP:WEIGHT of non-contemporaneous mainstream sources do not describe any talks, negotiation, or other serious substantive engagement. That's why the article does not mischaracterize this charade as any such event. SPECIFICO talk 13:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Please refer me to those discussions. We could word it 'but did not reach an agreement on denuclearisation'. Riposte97 (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO You reverted my edit claiming it was 'contrary to recent talk discussion'. Pretty fresh of you, even after reverting, to still fail to respond to my suggestion here. So, what exactly is wrong with my proposed wording? Your revert to your own wording is contrary to an RfC. Riposte97 (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The RfC mentioned in #44 does not dictate exact wording, it states "...and some degree of clarification that there haven't been clear results of those meetings." Neither your wording nor their wording runs contrary to this, so it is simply a matter of consensus. Since you appear to be the one introducing a change to the status quo, the onus is on you. Not them. Zaathras (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

It's true that the RfC settled on saying 'there haven't been clear results'. However, I'd say it's pretty clear that labelling the meetings a failure in their stated objective is actually stating a clear result. It's also, in my view (for all that matters) just factually incorrect. The meetings resulted in a joint declaration committing inter alia to the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula. Riposte97 (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

A lack of a result is not in itself a result. If that is what your argument rests on, then I think we're good on this tangent. Zaathras (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Very well. I still believe that 'making no progress' is a result, in the same way it is when you attempt any task, but I'll go with consensus. Riposte97 (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Knauss or Knavs? What do birth certificates say?

Knauss or Knavs? 88.97.108.45 (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 167#Melania in the infobox. Birth name is not always the best choice. If we went with birth name, it would be Melanija Knavs, which would be a bit confusing considering that everybody knows her as Melania. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

This is biased and false

"Trump refused to concede after losing the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden, falsely claiming widespread electoral fraud, and attempted to overturn the results by pressuring government officials, mounting scores of unsuccessful legal challenges, and obstructing the presidential transition. On January 6, 2021, he urged his supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol, which many of them then attacked, resulting in multiple deaths and interrupting the electoral vote count."

This section clearly shows left wing bias. Fix plz. 2600:100F:B1B6:7945:0:1A:847:5801 (talk) 04:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

This is very much unbiased and is a well-documented event. The Capitol Riots were reported by multiple reliable, neutral sources. Someone, i guess^{(talk i guess|le edit list)} 04:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it biased and misleading to say that the capitol rioters led to "multiple deaths." All the deaths were natural causes, sucide, or Ashley Babbit. 68.234.168.25 (talk) 10:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

RS say otherwise. Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

We spent a long time discussing this exact issue: [6]. The consensus isn't going to shift any time soon. Cessaune [talk] 22:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

"On January 6, 2021, he urged his supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol, which many of them then attacked, resulting in multiple deaths and interrupting the electoral vote count."

So we have "...many of them then attacked, resulting in multiple deaths...". That looks like Trump supporters killed multiple people when they attacked the Capitol. As you noted, this language was supported by a consensus of editors here. Bob K31416 (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it looks like multiple people died when they attacked the Capitol. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

"resulting in" is misleading and should be removed[7] soibangla (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Instead of this nonspecific bias allegation, please suggest a specific, policy-based improvement, one that is backed up by reliable sources — see Talk:Donald_Trump/Response_to_claims_of_bias for more information (consensus #61). (Soibangla, your source says they take no position in the debate over whom to include in the deaths from the riots.) The wording in the lead is based on the Donald Trump#January 6 Capitol attack subsection in the body of our article: According to the Department of Justice, more than 140 police officers were injured, and five people died.. The cited ABC News article says that "five people died during or after the attack". The New York Times source cites the bipartisan Senate report which found that "at least seven people had lost their lives in connection with the Jan. 6 attack". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

We should be concerned with what the text conveys to the reader, rather than whether it is techically correct. A typical reader would interpret the text to mean that the victims died as result of injuries suffered during the incident. In comparison, we might say that 5,000 Americans died as a result of the War in Iraq and not include the 30,000 who died from suicide once they returned to the U.S.

Also, "multiple" probably fails MOS:WEASEL.

If you want a suggested replacement, I would say, "resulting in the death of one demonstrator and the subsequent death of x. no. of police officers through natural causes and suicide. TFD (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

yes soibangla (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I like TFD's solution. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Did we mention the 140 or so officers injured? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

No. Consensus #62 says that "the article's description of the five people who died during and subsequent to the January 6 Capitol attack should avoid a) mentioning the causes of death and b) an explicit mention of the Capitol Police Officer who died". That also rules out mentioning "natural causes and suicide" in the lead — not in the body, ergo not in the lead. resulting in multiple deaths is short and concise. What's weaselly about multiple? Multiple seems justified for six at the scene or line-of-duty (don't know about the status rulings on the three other officers who committed suicide in January and July 2021). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Literally everyone agreed, and you had to step in citing some consensus that you probably heavily influenced. Are you this opposed to adding like ten words to make the article more fair? DannyM999x (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's the discussion and RfC, if you care to read them. As it stands, we discussed the issue to death and then some (end of May to near-mid July). some consensus—hahahaha no. In total, 275 comments from multiple users. Drafts and rewrites and more rewrites. Infinitely spiraling discussions. No, #62 isn't "some consensus". Cessaune [talk] 04:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

No. Every death has a natural cause. In this instance the natural causes were the result of the insurrectionists' attacks. SPECIFICO talk 17:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

"resulting in multiple deaths." This is misleading. The natural causes deaths were not related to the capitol attack. Suicide cannot be blamed on a capitol attack. This is like saying that if you serve in Iraq but die from alcohol abuse a month later after leaving which started during deployment, you "died from service", which is totally misleading and disrespectful to war heros who die in combat. 68.234.168.22 (talk) 04:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Why are liberal Wikipedia admins and editors putting up so much of a fight to prevent adding a few phrases of qualifying information? Simply mentioning the causes of death in a few words in the lead (where most people only read it there) can prevent slandering a living person biography. Since when is Wikipedia the place for witholding information or burying it from view for transparently political purposes? Please include this critical info. 68.234.168.22 (talk) 04:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

These Are the People Who Died in Connection With the Capitol Riot https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/us/politics/jan-6-capitol-deaths.html?smid=nytcore-android-share 68.234.168.22 (talk) 04:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

[According to the above source] Four members of the mob died (Trump supporters).

One officer died of stroke, and four officers committed suicide (as long as 6 months later). 68.234.168.22 (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Some states have already investigated the matter and discovered that there was election fraud benefiting Joe Biden. A report was put out that indicated Donald Trump should have been the current sitting president of the United Staes of America. Thanks to Joe Biden, Justin Trudeau can do whatever he want. 174.92.195.101 (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

do you have any reliable sources? Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^Ex-Mørtis 12:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course not. 2601:985:B7F:9DF0:44E1:D84E:D223:7E63 (talk) 07:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Loans from Dad

"Trump has often said he began his career with "a small loan of one million dollars" from his father and that he had to pay it back with interest. He was a millionaire by age eight, borrowed at least $60 million from his father, largely failed to repay those loans, and received another $413 million (2018 dollars adjusted for inflation) from his father's company."

Neutral? 2603:8080:5802:B303:EC0D:CA46:A3CD:1A4B (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

If that's what the NYT sources behind the sentence say (I haven't checked), then what about it is not neutral? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's neutral because that's what the sources say. Failed to repay: In fact, The Times found, Fred Trump lent his son at least $60.7 million, or $140 million in today’s dollars. Much of it was never repaid, records show. (NYT). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

What happened to the old lead?

I noticed that there's now tags, odd phrasings (ex: "...which cut taxes and set the financial penalty to nil for the individual health insurance mandate..."), and multiple talk page posts over the lead. Was there a previous decision to move away from the lead as it existed for a very long time? BootsED (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Not a consensus, just some back-and-forth over alleged excessive details (see this and this and this discussion) and not enough opposition to semantic pedantry (or violation of 24-hr BRD restrictions, for that matter): lead, body, rvt, attempt to compromise, whatev. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2024

Could you remove the “severely” from the de-regulation section (regarding firearm policy), it comes off as biased. ArcTheMedic (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

IS this what the sources say? Slatersteven (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Fixed the citation's url.[8] The source does say "severely" mentally ill. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

For reference, here's context, "...including a bill that made it easier for severely mentally ill persons to buy guns."

Mandruss, You might want to check other reliable sources. Examples of reliable sources that have descriptions without "severely", or words to that effect are, NBC 2019 NBC 2017 CNN ABC AP It looks like the given Politico source is unique or in the minority of reliable sources that use "severely". The only other source I found with "severely", or words to that effect, was a congressman's website [9] where he was advocating for his bill. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

"Mental illness" can include any mental health condition, like low level depression and anxiety. "Severe mental illness" is a term that focuses on schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, PTSD, etc. Background checks don't prevent people with all mental illness from buying a firearm, just severe conditions, especially if it has resulted in hospitalizations. Stories on the 2016 rule are not clear about the distinction, because journalists are not subject matter experts on this, but the rules are clearly not meant to bar anyone with some social phobia or fear of flying from owning a gun. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Bob, it should be noted that this was a misuse of the edit request facility, which is not an alternative way to start a discussion thread. If discussion is or might be required, the OP should click "New section" at the top of this page.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for editors who do this, since it shows they haven't bothered to read the instructions before using edit request (or they have read them and ignored them). That's disrespectful to everybody, only starting with the editors who developed the edit request facility and painstakingly wrote those instructions.

It's not like an editor has to be aware of the WP:EDITREQ page. Adequate instructions are prominently presented in the edit request path. To see this, log out and click "View source" at the top of the article page. Included in the instructions is: "What an edit request IS NOT for: [...] making a comment or starting a discussion: go to the talk page [...]".

Now that you have morphed this into a discussion, it has to stay on the page until 14 days idle; otherwise, it could have been manually archived today, per #13. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Banning mass edits, Phase 1

See #Lead: Consensus 43 vio? for limited-participation discussion of a proposed ban of mass edits, such as this one, at this article. Radical, perhaps, but when has that stopped this pack of rebellious anarchists? See the linked discussion for (imo) strong supporting arguments.

A big hurdle is finding workable language for a consensus item. "No mass edits" would likely be unconstructive and ineffective. That's the sole purpose of this thread; if workable language can be hammered out, we can proceed separately with a !vote. If not, any further discussion would be pointless.

Categorical Opposers of the whole concept can sit this one out, as can Supporters who just want to say they support. Both groups should wait for the !vote, if any occurs. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Term suggestions?

Myri-edit, poly-edit, multi-edit, vari-edit, numer-edit, omni-edit...and forge-edit XD

Cheers. DN (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The issue is, I just can't think of a way to codify something like this. It's just going to be another consensus #58, except a lot more relevant to everyday tasks, and a lot more spiky. Bytesize? Or does someone have to specifically look at someone's edit to decide whether they broke the rule? Cessaune [talk] 01:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cessaune What if the parameters were limited to individual sections? DN (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Consider phrasing the consensus item as advice:

When possible, avoid large edits consisting of multiple individual changes. Instead, break it up into multiple edits. Such large edits can be difficult to sort out the acceptable from the less acceptable and may be reverted.

Bob K31416 (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Now we're talkin'. That's a good start. It reads like a guideline, and we revert per guidelines all the time. We might need some way to convey that (like guideline-based reverts) such a revert is not unchallengeable on this page. Some edits, hopefully uncommon, may fall into a gray area that requires a bit of discussion. If we ended up with too much such discussion, well, we could cancel the consensus item and say we tried. Nothing should be set in stone. I much prefer "try it and see" over crystal ball opposition. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

If my gray-area edit gets reverted, am I going to break it down into smaller pieces despite disagreeing with the revert, or start a discussion about it? Lacking a need to win and a battleground mentality, and assuming good faith on the part of the reverter (and wishing to save time), I suspect the former. And I'll think twice about future gray-area edits, erring on the side of smaller edits. I don't think I'm atypical in that respect, at least at this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Avoid edits with several individual factual changes. Such edits may be reverted in toto if they make it difficult for other editors to separate the acceptable from the less acceptable. Instead, make separate edits for individual changes. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Unhelpfully "mass" edits needn't be factual changes. Mere copy edits may be a mix of the acceptable and the less acceptable. (And "factual change" is a fuzzy concept anyway: there are disagreements about whether a change is a factual change or a mere copy edit.) Of course, an editor could always opt for partial revert or further improvement over full revert, neither invoking this consensus item.

Now, a new consensus item should not preclude "mass" changes of the same type, such as conforming the article to a particular MoS guideline. It's hard to object to only part of such an edit. I don't know that this item would need such a fine point on it. On the other hand, I have just recently said re a different issue that we should comply with the letter of an item or change it.[10]

This is a complicated business, no question, but worth it imo. We've seen encouraging progress with only one day and five editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

So, a mass edit could in theory be reverted, but wouldn't be required to be? Just clarifying. Cessaune [talk] 03:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Sounds about right. If you object to only part of an edit, and you're not in the mood for a partial revert (you shouldn't be required to go to that extra effort just because the bold editor failed to go to the smaller extra effort of splitting), then revert. Otherwise, don't. It should go without saying that the item could be abused in any of several ways, and it would hardly be unusual in that respect. For example, it could be invoked when the partial revert would be really easy. Solution: peer pressure. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the logic of your second sentence makes sense. If you make three changes in a single edit and I revert two of them in another edit, that's more effort from me than a one-click revert, but it's less effort from me than you put into making all three. And if I agree with one of your changes, I shouldn't be reverting it just because I'm "not in the mood". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm. I won't argue with those points. The argument for something like this is clearly illustrated in the issue that started it all. Your edit put Space4T in the position of having to manually revert certain parts of the edit, whereas undo would've likely worked given that he's here every day like clockwork. He would have had to manually revert them individually, one change item at a time, so as to facilitate one-issue-one-thread discussion, and because each one needed a separate rationale for reversion. How did it make sense for him to bear that burden, when you could have fairly easily split your edit? What is your compelling argument against splitting? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The argument for something like this is clearly illustrated in the issue that started it all. I don't think this makes sense either. You posit that if Space4T had responded "correctly" he would have reverted those edits individually with separate rationales. If I had made every change in that edit individually, to revert some but not others he would have had to revert each individually with separate rationales anyways, and in that case would not even have had the opportunity to bundle several with the same rationale (which seems to have been the case, from his explanation above), as he would if the original edits were combined.

If an editor bears the burden of making multiple good-faith changes, it seems quite reasonable that a reverter should bear the burden of objecting to whichever of those they'd want to object to, rather than asking the editor to exert greater effort to make it easier for the reverter to erase their labour. Bundling changes in this way is common practice and would need a compelling argument to justify "outlawing"; I'm not seeing one here. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

If I had made every change in that edit individually, to revert some but not others he would have had to revert each individually with separate rationales anyways Quite true. I didn't mean to say that would've been part of the extra work for him; merely that it was part of the need for the extra work for him. Confused yet? Bundling changes in this way is common practice This article is probably unusual in its highly developed processes that have evolved over the years, and in its commitment to them (the consensus list is only part of it). It seems to have a culture and personality all its own, and editors must think it's superior (or at least no worse) or the culture and personality wouldn't have survived for so long. It's not like a handful of process wonk weirdos are to blame for creating this and keeping it going; I've seen a dozen or two "regulars" come and go since 2015. Few voices have said that this article can't innovate in these areas because new arrivals can't be asked to adapt in relatively small ways. This might help explain why bundling doesn't work well here. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't think you're here to help work out language for the consensus item. I've asked everyone else to stand by. No consensus is being sought here beyond the language itself. Not that I don't enjoy your company, of course. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Manually reverting a part of a large edit is more difficult than using UNDO to revert the part if it was a separate edit. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion:

1) An edit should not be able to be reverted simply because it is a mass edit. A user who wishes to revert must first provide a valid rationale in their edit summary, AND cite the consensus item.

2) An editor is allowed to revert a revert that simply cites the consensus item without any further rationale. Cessaune [talk] 14:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

What kind of further rationale did you have in mind? "rv per consensus 66 because I disagree with only part of this large edit and I feel a partial revert would be too difficult to do properly" ―Mandruss ☎ 17:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Just the typical stuff. Like, why you disagree with the edit. For example, you couldn't say "reverting per consensus #66" and have that be your entire edit summary. Cessaune [talk] 17:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

That's the point of the item in the first place. You have one reason for opposing change item A, another for change item B, and six more for change items C through H. It would be entirely impractical to put all of your individual rationales in a single edit summary. There's a length limit, never mind the difficulty of doing so.

Anyway, if you were to do that, you wouldn't need to invoke this item, right? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Let me clarify. If an edit consists of A, B, and C, the reverter needs to disagree with at least one of them, and make that clear in the edit summary. Such an edit summary would look something like this: revert — edit C is not applicable per [policy]; invoking consensus #66. In my mind, you wouldn't be able to revert a mass edit simply because it is a mass edit, and you wouldn't be able to revert a mass edit even if you thought that part of the edit failed to comply with some rule, unless you explicitly state this in the edit summary.

If I disagreed with item A and B, but not C, yes, I think I would have to put all of [my] individual rationales in a single edit summary. Otherwise, it is extremely tedious for the editor I reverted to figure out what exactly I'm opposing. And hyperbole ignores reality—no one is compacting eight different edits into one edit. Maybe four, max. Explaining a rationale for three separate types of edits isn't nearly as tedious as doing the same for eight. Cessaune [talk] 22:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

you wouldn't be able to revert a mass edit simply because it is a mass edit - Of course. The consensus item could state that explicitly, although I think it could be made apparent without doing so.

Hyperbole? I see upwards of ten distinct unrelated changes in Nikkimaria's edit, and one could quite reasonably object to any one of them without objecting to others (even nearby others). And, as I say below, one could object to all of the changes, so we're talking about potentially upwards of ten rationales. And we've seen mass edits even larger than Nikkimaria's. No hyperbole here; if anything, the opposite, whatever the word is for that.

the reverter needs to disagree with at least one of them - Sure, if you think it's useful to require a rationale for at least one objection, I have no problem with that despite not really seeing the point. Requiring more than one, no. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Ten is a stretch. You're telling me you consider the reworking of the felony sentence four distinct unrelated edits? Because, if that's the case, and a consensus #66 existed, you could revert based on that rationale, which I would decidedly not support. Cessaune [talk] 00:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Pointless to argue this point. we've seen mass edits even larger than Nikkimaria's. Literally five times that size. No hyperbole. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Otherwise, it is extremely tedious for the editor I reverted to figure out what exactly I'm opposing. They don't need to know that at this juncture. The objective of your revert is not to help them address your content concerns; it's to get them to break down the edit so you can more easily and more effectively convey your content concerns. Then they can address them. You're "opposing" the bundling—a process objection, nothing more. When we revert a violation of the 24-hour rule, does our editsum say anything about the content involved? No, because it's irrelevant to the revert. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The 24-hour rule is an Arbitration remedy. We revert in that case because we are required to. In this case, there is no requirement to revert. So the two are fundamentally different.

a process objection, nothing more—you say that as if we aren't defining process right now. Cessaune [talk] 14:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

What would've been your response if I had omitted those last two sentences? Just curious, since the rest of the comment is salient but ignored (aside from your last sentence, which I can't make much sense of). ―Mandruss ☎ 22:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

If, for example, I disagree with three separate edits, I would have to provide edit summaries for each of them. I don't see why, if the three edits are bundled together, that that fact needs to change. Your proposal creates an intermediary step that wastes time and is tedious for both the editor and the reverter. Cessaune [talk] 00:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

There's a length limit -- we've seen mass edits even larger than Nikkimaria's -- The objective of your revert is not to help them address your content concerns [...] -- You provide the three (or twelve) edit summaries after the split, which is the point of the split and the consensus item. Intermediary step, yes. Takes more time for the bold editor, yes, and the way to avoid that is to effing refrain from mass edits. Takes more time for the reverter, not so much. Wastes that time, no.

Now we're getting circular. Don't make me invoke IDHT. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

In fact, those last two sentences have really pissed me off. I accepted your compromise below; you asked me a question after I had already agreed with your proposal. I answered truthfully as to my opinion on the topic. So, respectfully, how are we getting circular? I've already agreed with you! I privately disagree, but I am willing to forgo all that in the name of compromise, and I feel like I made that pretty obvious below.

And fucking IDHT? Am I going against an established consensus? Or are you suggesting that your opinion is shared by the broader community, despite the fact that it's mainly been a two-person discussion this entire time? Or is it something else? Do I lack competence? I don't get it. Even if I don't get your point (which I do) how is IDHT in any way appropriate? Cessaune [talk] 02:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we're supposed to counter each other's points or accept them and let them shape subsequent discussion, not simply ignore them and continue to argue as if they hadn't been made. That's how I interpret IDHT—right or wrong. Otherwise, if we're now spelling out "fucking", it's time to step away for awhile. I'm beginning to care less about this anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Interpret IDHT however you want, but don't go around essentially accusing editors of disruptive editing for relatively weak reasons. As it stands, I don't believe that I was ignoring your points, and, if I was, I didn't intend to. But I really feel like I wasn't. Cessaune [talk] 04:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Trying again after sleep.

Your comment, If, for example, I disagree with three separate edits, I would have to provide edit summaries for each of them. I don't see why, if the three edits are bundled together, that that fact needs to change. betrays your failure to understand my point, The objective of your revert is not to help them address your content concerns; it's to get them to break down the edit so you can more easily and more effectively convey your content concerns. You're improperly conflating and mixing the content objections with the process objection.

You're also stuck on "three edits" when I've already made the point that it's sometimes a lot more than three—we've seen mass edits even larger than Nikkimaria's—and too many to cram into a single editsum. You have neither countered that point nor accepted it.

Hence my frustration.

Yes, I'm backing up after prematurely agreeing to the compromise. Apologies for that.

I hope this provides some clarification; but I don't think I could be any clearer. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

1) Who defines whether this is a process thing, or a content thing, or both? We do. You can wish for it to be a process thing only, but, as long as there is a requirement to state objection to at least one item, it's both a content and a process issue. And I feel like the idea that The objective of your revert is not to help them address your content concerns; it's to get them to break down the edit so you can more easily and more effectively convey your content concerns is a simple matter of opinion, an opinion I don't fully agree with.

2) It was apparently Pointless to argue this point, so I let it drop. If it's true that we've seen edits literally five times larger than Nikkimaria's, I'm in the wrong, I guess. Cessaune [talk] 03:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

so I let it drop. And continued to argue as if the point hadn't been made.

Since we appear to have irreconcilable differences, and there is no other participation, it is now a dead issue. Thanks for playing. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mandruss I think that could be premature. what leads you to believe the other editors have moved on. I still see a use for discussing mass-edit parameters and limitations. DN (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

By all means, feel free to discuss them. I didn't mean to imply that I have any authority to end a discussion under these circumstances; if I wanted to do that, I would've closed. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

By the way, the item could also be invoked when you object to all of the bold mass edit. So I've been wrong to say that "part of" "only part of" is a requirement. The point is the difficulty of individual manual reverts. I don't think either of the two language proposals (Bob & Space4T) take this into account. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC) Redacted 18:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Simple: you need to object to at least a portion of the mass edit to invoke the consensus item. Cessaune [talk] 14:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Please clarify. I've already said I could live with a requirement to state objection to at least one of the change items. Will you accept that compromise? If so, doesn't that moot most of this recent back-and-forth? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure; yes. Cessaune [talk] 01:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

2020 Arizona campaign

@Bob K31416: Re this revert - "illustrate" per Merriam Webster definition "to provide with visual features intended to explain or decorate". The image contains nothing illustrative of either Arizona or the 2020 campaign. It's just one more photograph of Trump in front of a crowd that could have been taken anywhere since 2016, and the article already has a 2016 Arizona campaign image that at least says "Arizona". The 2020 campaign article has comparatively few images, and if you have side-by-side images — captioned that they were taken in Nevada on October 27 and in Arizona on the next day — it shows the frenetic pace shortly before the election and enlivens a long scroll down section after section of campaign details. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Your remarks and actions seem inconsistent and incorrect. For example, you wrote, "It's just one more photograph of Trump in front of a crowd that could have been taken anywhere since 2016..." Then why did you put it in the campaign article in the section 2020 campaign developments>October 2020 with the caption "Trump at October 28 rally at Phoenix airport, Arizona"? Bob K31416 (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The caption is based on the photographer's summary. As I said, I'm fine with the image as decoration in the campaign article which has comparatively few images. In this article, it doesn't add any information, and, IMO, sizewise we don't have room for pure decoration. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Space4T. This article's images already provide more than ample information about Trump's current/recent physical appearance. When there aren't enough informative images available, we have to accept some level of decoration to keep an article from seeming dry and uninviting; but this article is already doing that without this image. While I'm too lazy to do so (semi-retired), I encourage editors to work harder to find informative images for this article. Even a photo of Trump outside of a conservative business suit would be some improvement.

As for the campaign article or any other, that is not a topic for this page. And I'm intensely uninterested in (subjectively) inconsistent and incorrect remarks and actions. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Flagged For Non Neutrality

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.

---

I have been reading through a number of chats on wikipedia, and this one should be flagged for violating the Neutrality policy, especially given the calls for neutrality in the chat have been rejected 2601:246:5A83:D090:9C52:9A1E:C889:AB5A (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have "chats", so I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean discussion on this talk page, that's not required to be "neutral". ―Mandruss ☎ 00:25, 15 May 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.

Please note that this was a bad faith copypasta thread. The IP pasted the exact same message into multiple unrelated Talk pages in a lazy attempt to cause disruption. We do not need to waste our time dealing with trolls. Any further such threads should simply be removed per WP:DENY. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Point taken. Now we have to look at the contribs for context, rather than taking the post at face value. Considering that so little disruption was actually caused, I'm not sure it's worth it (and in fact the point of consensus 61 is to minimize said disruption without unnecessary hostility, and it's been successful at doing so). DENY is there for articles that don't have a consensus 61 or something similar (basically all other articles, I suspect). It would've helped if you had referred to the contribs in your editsum; you gave us zero information to work with, and we couldn't have known that your competence is beyond challenge.

It should be understood that we outright-remove plenty of bias complaints, such as the one that preceded this one. The difference is whether there was "clearly bad faith". To make editors go research contribs before making the decision is itself a form of disruption.

And besides, was this editor's behavior materially different from adding {{POV}} to multiple articles? "Flagging" things the wrong way (being un-extended-confirmed, they couldn't have done it the right way), being wrong about the easily-misunderstood policy, and being a mere IPv6 editor with unknown other editing history do not constitute trolling or "clearly bad faith". They were not verbally abusive or libtard-hating over-the-top disrespectful like the other guy. Give a little respect, receive a little respect in return.

Trolling is posting for the sole purpose of causing disruption; it's about intent, not effect (troll, sense 2). There is little to no evidence that was this editor's motive, and per AGF we grant the benefit of the doubt at this article. If you're going to use the word around these parts, please use it correctly. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Add to lede that Trump is a convicted felon

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.

---

Now that Trump has been convicted it should be added to his lede as it's an unprecedented and important piece of information about him. Iboughtavanagon (talk) 21:58, 30 May 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2024 (6)

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 should have "convicted felon" added to his biographical information at the top of the page. 2601:249:1980:B2C0:D2A4:F67D:EF8E:946F (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 23:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

In addition, if you mean the first sentence, there is an RFC on that above. If you mean first paragraph, I'd say you should get consensus first. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 23:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Justarandomamerican: While it's fair to deny the request, it's pretty obvious what the request is, so don't see why you're posting that template response. Master of Time (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear where, which is why the request is too ambiguous right now. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Some people (especially IPs who have small edit counts) may not know what an RfC is. Clarification helps. :) WxTrinity (talk to me!) 23:53, 30 May 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.

Convicted felon

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.

---

Convicted felon. Why isn't this specified in the article? The Manhattan D.A. said it himself, convicted of 34 accounts in the hush money case. That's being a convicted felon. 2A02:2F01:6102:D000:6978:9FBB:CEDB:C87F (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

See the RfC above. This is a bit complicated, and needs a community consensus. WxTrinity :3 (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 23:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not complicated?

If any one of us would've been convicted of any illegality, we'd be stamped as convicted felons – the dinosaur-chicken parallel argument/logic.

This' New York, Manhattan. This is like the epicenter of all matters related to the justice system in the US.

This isn't rocket science, no? 2A02:2F01:6102:D000:6978:9FBB:CEDB:C87F (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

the rocket science isn't whether or not he's a felon, it's whether or not it belongs in the first sentence of the article. as of right now it's in the sixth paragraph BlooTannery (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

That’s what I meant. It’s complicated technically as to whether the “felon” part should be in the first sentence. Community consensus goes before personal opinion. WxTrinity (talk to me!) 23:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

If that's the case, wouldn't it be a case for any and every article, on Wikipedia, related to an individual that was convicted?

Usually, the current format is: "So-n-So (born mm-dd-yyy) is a [former] blah-blah-blah and convicted felon.[...]" – right in the first sentence of their introductory article, besides the other details related to their conviction felony.

Might want to take it into consideration, consensus or not... 2A02:2F01:6102:D000:6978:9FBB:CEDB:C87F (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I get that, but right now there is a RfC open.I have no idea what else to say besides the community is having a discussion about it. I’m not arguing about it here. WxTrinity (talk to me!) 23:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

He's the first US President in history, former or otherwise, to be convicted of a felony. If that isn't first sentence material, it is at least first paragraph. 188.26.221.177 (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

It is NOT complicated. He should be treated like anyone else. He was found guilty of felonies by a jury of his peers, hence he IS a convicted felon. 104.229.233.192 (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The sixth paragraph says that already. The disagreement is whether or not it should be in the first sentence. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 23:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Justarandomamerican but it should be in the first paragraph, as he is the first former President to be criminally convicted of felonies. Aridantassadar (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd encourage you to express that opinion in the section above, then! Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 23:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

He needs to be described as a convicted felon. This is not trivial.[11] --Tataral (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The way it`s written now is just plain bad writing..something along the lines of he is the only president to be convicted of 34 charges involving Stormy Daniels which implies other presidents may have been convicted of other felonies..or not...he is the only president to have been convicted of a felony period which is how it should read Anonymous8206 (talk) 00:39, 31 May 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2024 (2)

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.

---

add convicted felon to his description for accuracy 12.35.128.178 (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Not done for now: Consensus needs to be established in the above RfC. --Firestar464 (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done There is an ongoing discussion on this topic above. Feel free to add your thoughts. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 21:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Be careful about declining edit requests within this vein as "active RfC" since the RfC focuses on the first sentence of the article specifically, which this requested edit does not specify is where they want the change. There is going to be an influx of requested edits similar to this and many such people are going to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and convention. That said, I was still planning to decline as  Not done regardless, as the request is not specific enough and this article has sufficient attention from extended confirmed editors that such changes will inevitably be added. —Sirdog (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

We have no other president or ex-president who's ever been convicted of a felony let alone 34 of them. We are obligated to call attention to that early in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC74:6240:4518:BB2B:9BB0:A19 (talk) 22:09, 30 May 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2024 (3)

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.

---

Add convicted felon to the descriptor at the top of page. 50.231.103.218 (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done There is a discussion above in which you are welcome to add your thoughts. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 22:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

He's a convicted felon and per the norm that should be in the descriptor at the top of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:bc74:6240:4518:bb2b:9bb0:a19 (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

It`s spelled lead..curious as to how many candy bars protection is going for Anonymous8206 (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

No, it’s spelled “lede.” And what you did right there is spelled “own goal.” Itsspelledlede (talk) 01:04, 31 May 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.

Restore deleted categories

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.

---

Please add the following categories back into the article. They were removed as "irrelevant" and "redundant", but they are most definitely not. [[Category:21st-century American criminals]] [[Category:New York (state) politicians convicted of crimes]] [[Category:American politicians convicted of fraud]] 66.69.214.204 (talk) 09:48, 31 May 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.

Convicted felon

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

---

This needs to be added to the first paragraph, tgis site has a long long standing tradition of being unbiased why is this case any different also criminal status needs to be added to the box’s

I am a trump supporter but the integrity of this site is more important then anyone’s feelings John Bois (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but there’s already an ongoing discussion on this in the section, “RfC on use of ‘convicted felon’ in first sentence”. Opportunity Rover (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Funny though it is, it's not really a major defining moment of his life. Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 31 May 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2024

Donald Trump was found guilty on 34 counts and is officially now a convicted felon. 216.49.139.138 (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Czello ^(music) 10:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@216.49.139.138, that fact is already discussed in the article. Do you have a specific edit request? TarnishedPath^talk 11:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2024 (2)

Personal Details, Penalty, capitalize the "J" in Judge ConvincedQuaker (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 DoneJFVoll (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Criminal information infobox template

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.

---

At what point will the Criminal Information infobox template be added? There is long precedent to have that template added to the infobox of convicted criminals and this case would be no different. At this point we have perfectly valid information to include in the "Criminal Status", "Convictions", and the "Criminal Penalty" field would be something to the effect of "awaiting sentencing July 11, 2024". 142.162.242.228 (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• FYI those fields are currently in the infobox, but they don't display because there Politician infobox doesn't accept them. Unfortunately I'm on mobile and can't fix it at the moment. –dlthewave ☎ 00:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  They’re accepted on the page for George Santos and R. Budd Dwyer. MountainDew20 (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I added this infobox in the 'Investigations' 'Hush money' section a few hours ago.SandRand97 (talk) 02:45, 31 May 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2024 (3)

Add at the end of the first section: He was impeached twice by the House of Representatives, but not convicted in the Senate. He is the only US president convicted of felony offenses, 34 counts of falsifying business records. He was defeated by Joseph Biden in the 2020 election, but did not concede; he fought the result in court and the public square, citing election fraud. His allegations were never proven. 2600:4809:8812:C400:B477:FA0E:13C8:ABF (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 14:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Lead: Consensus 43 vio?

Consensus #43 indicates that for the lead section, "the mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it." With that in mind, Space4Time3Continuum2x, could you provide a rationale for this edit? The lead is well in excess of an appropriate length and level of detail. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I still think that when your removal of longstanding content from the lead is challenged, you need to provide a rationale for the removal on the Talk page. (Your edit summary merely says "rework lead".) Per MOS:LEAD, the lead gives the basics in a nutshell, and six words defining the successful side ventures seem appropriate to me. Ditto the seven words explaining which families were affected by the family separation policy, the three words detailing the kind of Covid misinformation he spread, the sheer number of felony counts, and the sentence on the rollback of environmental policies. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

What do you think of Nikkimaria's comment, "The lead is well in excess of an appropriate length and level of detail." Bob K31416 (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

This. Adding a handful of words about every single topic adds up to a lot more than a handful, and when the lead is so overlong there would need to be a much stronger justification for doing that. In fact it would be appropriate to do more reworking. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Well this has taken a strange turn. Good luck. Bob K31416 (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Space4Time3Continuum2xSo why is there an issue with adding "just a handful of words" about the causes of death on January 6? Now it is highly misleading:

"he urged his supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol, which many of them then attacked, resulting in multiple deaths and interrupting the electoral vote count."

This statement saying "resulting in multiple deaths" is MISSING CONTEXT. This source I cite below clearly spells out that all deaths were either natural causes or suicide or Ashley Babbit, not the result of violence of the rioters. The average reader, including over half of the students I showed this, is led into thinking that the deaths were violent after mentioning an "attack."

These Are the People Who Died in Connection With the Capitol Riot https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/us/politics/jan-6-capitol-deaths.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

(Personal attack removed) 68.234.168.22 (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Do we say "violence by rioters"? Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the personal attack. You already uttered your opinion in "This is biased and false", above (here, here, and here). Consensus #62 applies. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, where is the personal attack? Has a comment been removed?

I agree that the current wording is misleading. 'Resulting in' can clearly be read two ways, one of which contradicts #62, as it essentially means the attackers killed them. Riposte97 (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The personal attack was removed per WP:RPA. To point you to that edit would largely defeat the purpose of the removal. It's in the page history if you have the time and the interest. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't think that was an appropriate removal, but I don't care enough to argue the point.

Focussing on the issue, the current wording can be read to violate consensus. The simplest way to fix that is probably just to end the sentence at 'attacked', but open to suggestions. Riposte97 (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Space4T, I have difficulty reconciling your editsum with #43. It seems to me you should've provided separate editsum rationale for each and every change item you reverted, even if that required 10+ edits. I know that's a lot of work.

It also seems to me that Nikkimaria should have facilitated that by splitting their edit into discrete pieces. Mass changes like this are always a problem, to the point I might support a consensus item forbidding them in the lead or anywhere else. Minimizing page history entries is not a priority. (It would also force editors to slow down a little with their bold edits, never a Bad Thing.) ―Mandruss ☎ 22:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

How exactly would we go about forbidding mass changes? Just curious. Cessaune [talk] 22:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I don't do details: the devil's in them. Lol. Yeah, I asked myself the same question. I'm not the smartest guy in the room, as you know, and I think it would be doable if we put our collective mind to it. I don't think it could be codified with precision, and Wikipedia hates that kind of thing anyway. It's one of those things where there are three areas or zones: a clear "yes" (i.e., the vast majority of bold edits here), a clear "no" (e.g., Nikkimaria's edit), and a gray area in between. For the most part, the only disputes would occur in the gray area, and it might not be excessively large. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. It would potentially save a lot of time, because people could get down to discussing the real issues in dispute. Riposte97 (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

It was one bulk edit involving removals, changes of sentence order, and copy edits, and I challenged most of it. My objection wasn't that an edit to the lead hadn't been discussed beforehand. From now on, I won't ask editors to take edits I challenge to the Talk page; I'll leave it to the author to figure out what to do. In this case, it was also redundant because the editor isn't new and has been active on this page for a while. Instead, my editsum should have said s.th. like "partial rvt - challenging rmv of info vital to understand e.g. fam. sep., type of covid misinformation, rollback of environm. policies, the astounding number of felony counts …". It's not as if editors (not just me) hadn't complained about mass edits before. If there had been 10+ separate edits, I or other editors could have objected to individual ones. Editsum "rework lead": I know we're not required to state a reason, but it's a courtesy to do so, especially in a much-litigated article such as this one. Maybe the reason for removing e.g. mention that he separated migrant families at the border would have convinced me or other editors not to challenge it? (First time I heard of minimization of page history - is that a thing?) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

(First time I heard of minimization of page history - is that a thing?) Assuming you're serious, I meant "minimizing the number of page history entries". It's really the only reason one would do such a mass edit, beyond saving the wee bit of time required to start each smaller edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I left out a word - can't really call it a typo. Brain spasm? I was referring to your sentence Minimizing page history entries is not a priority. Off-topic: today's NYT has an aerial view of the swirls and eddies on top of Trump's head. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

So I gathered, but I guess I misunderstood you, thinking you were thinking of "minimizing" as in minimizing a window or something.

I suppose I could be more cynical and say that an editor might do a mass edit to make it more difficult to challenge (all the more reason to ban mass edits). ―Mandruss ☎ 15:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I do recall discussion along the lines of, "If you edit en masse, don't complain about being challenged en masse." What we're considering above is simply formalizing that and giving it teeth. Your editsum would have been "rv per consensus 66" and #43 would not have been in play. Or, better yet, Nikkimaria would've been aware of #66 and refrained from the mass edit in the first place. I think it's worth pursuing. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• FYI, the Trump lead is about twice as large as the Biden lead. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

My take: The lead is too long because lead summarizes body and body is too long. You can't fix the former without first fixing the latter. This well-intentioned reduction is occurring in the wrong place.

But we're mixing a process dispute, which is how this thread started, with a content dispute, and it might be more useful to separate them. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It's like obesity leads to all sorts of medical problems. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Mos def. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Regarding this edit: your edit summary is absolutely correct that he spread other misinformation, which is why your revert is incorrect - specifying one kind of misinformation makes it appear that that was the only kind, when in fact it was a much broader issue. Similarly with the "slowly" piece: the problem was his immediate reaction was denial or contradiction, which is what the text goes on to say. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: We had a ginormous discussion about this sentence almost exactly a year ago, and the current version is what we landed on. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

That ginormous discussion didn't find consensus for this version so much as it fell back on it as a default, because editors struggled to balance concision with the nuance of describing the various misinformation at play. The reverted version solves the issues raised in that discussion: it is concise without misleading, it is correct in a more comprehensive way than the current version, and it leaves discussion of those nuances to the linked article for those who wish to learn more. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. Consensus version restored. Zaathras (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

As the item you cited indicates, there is no consensus on specific wording; the only requirement is that his reaction is mentioned, which it was prior to your revert. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

As the wording has remained largely as-is since, I'm afraid it is. Feel free to see if there's support for your proposed change. Otherwise, status quo ante. Zaathras (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

At best, your editsum rationale was incorrect per the cited consensus item. IMNSHO, any editor would be within process to revert you on that basis alone. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras: In addition to the above, your most recent revert violates the arbitration remedy; please self-revert. Do you have a substantive objection to the change? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras: Re: [12][13] Just how much consensus do you require for this relatively inconsequential issue? Do you propose pinning this section with the hope of substantially more participation? Starting an RfC? Dispute resolution? What? I'm seeing a need to WP:WIN and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that we don't often see at this article in recent years.

As I said previously, an editor would be within process to revert you on the basis of your incorrect edit summary. You could not dispute that fact, so you resorted to other tactics: a de facto consensus argument and a no consensus argument, neither having any merit in this situation. Even if you claim they have merit, you can't play them like trump cards against the opposition of two editors. That's not how it works, and I think you know that. It's like linking to WP:NPOV and expecting all others to bow in deference—a common newbie mistake. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

All that said, if Space4Time3Continuum2x sides with you, that makes it 2–2 and in fact no consensus. It's not entirely clear to me that he does, so let's ask him. If there is no consensus and status quo ante is clear enough (I haven't checked), you WP:WIN.

Even so, you and others went about it the wrong way: disputes should be addressed on this page, not by re-re-re-reversions on the article page, and edit summaries are a very poor substitute for collaborative discussion. Only after the discussion has played out should the article be touched, if then. I don't much care how things are done elsewhere, or even what the guidelines say (guidelines have to be written for the general case); I've spent enough time elsewhere to know that method doesn't work very well for highly contentious subject areas. It favors and rewards the aggressive, thereby encouraging aggressiveness. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Sequence of edits: Nikkimaria, my rvt, NikkiMaria rvt, Zaathras rvt, Nikkimaria rvt, Zaathras rvt. Seems to me that Nikkimaria shouldn’t have made their first revert after I challenged their first edit because there was no consensus for a change at the time, and there isn’t one now (are you the second editor supporting removal)? I still think that "promoted misinformation about testing and unproven treatments" would have been the better version but one year isn't long enough for me to want to go through s.th. like that archived discussion again. What about consensus #48? Completely ignored by every editor in the 2023 discussion (I plead non-involvement in the 2020 RfC with resulting unawareness of #48 , and I'm aware of ignorance of the law not being an excuse) that, in practice, appears to have resulted (who can tell?) in a new consensus and new wording of the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I'll buy your process analysis. I'll also drop out of the !voting, since I don't have a content opinion here (my error). That makes it 2–1 in favor of status quo ante.

This kerfuffle points to the importance of stricter adherence to BRD, and I arrived late causing me to read the situation wrong. Apologies to Zaathras for some of what I said.

Nikkimaria: When one's bold edit is reverted, it goes to the talk page until there is a consensus for the change (or the bold editor chooses not to challenge the challenge). As we've seen, there is some disagreement about what constitutes a consensus, but we weren't close to one at the time of your first revert. Disruption ensued. Zaathras's reverts were also wrong IMO (the remedy for article disruption is not more article disruption), but yours was wrong first. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

We may disagree about what constitutes a consensus, but what is clear is that it's not a vote. At the time of my first revert, the only argument put forward in favour of status quo here was a previous discussion that arrived at no consensus. That hadn't changed by the second. Space4Time: do you have a rationale for your preferred version? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

"Your argument is invalid, so it doesn't count, so I win." I don't think I've ever seen that logic succeed, nor should it. Except in cases where no rationale whatsoever was given (that's what a vote is), we accept the numbers or appeal to a higher power, such as RfC or dispute resolution. Space4T's rationale is here.

Or, we can try to change the numbers by swaying others. If that fails after a reasonable amount of time, see above. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

We discount invalid arguments all the time - there's several items in the consensus list along those lines.

I responded to Space4T's edit summary in my post above; I'd be interested in seeing further discussion around that, if anyone has counterpoints. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not enough to be right in your view; you have to persuade others that you're right. If you can't do that, you're not right by Wikipedia's definition of right. Very little is so cut-and-dried black-and-white. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I'm very interested in anyone weighing in on why they feel I'm wrong on the substance of the edit under discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure, the only question being how much more time you want to commit to such a small issue, both yours and others'. Nobody is required to respond to you, as I'm sure you know, and a failure to respond does NOT constitute surrender. I know it can be damned frustrating, but we don't have to keep talking until you think we've talked enough. If others have had enough—and until you successfully pursue another avenue—and unless other editors jump in before auto-archival of this section—this is a settled issue against your bold edit. Gaming the system? Depends on one's perspective.

But your first revert was still wrong. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Proposal for the first paragraph

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.

---

Do you support or oppose this being the first paragraph of the article?

«Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. He is the first former president in United States history to be convicted of a crime.» Esterau16 (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Bad RFC this topic is already being discussed at § RfC on use of "convicted felon" in first sentence - and even though that's about the first sentence, it is clear that many are discussing whether it fits in elsewhere on that discussion, and so it should not be discussed further outside that discussion for now. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Bad RfC per Berchanhimez Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 21:47, 31 May 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2024 (4)

Add to this Bio. Only president to br convicted of a felony and is an adjudicated rapist. 2600:100B:B03A:6082:356F:51B8:98D8:C1B1 (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC) That is fair and should not be in the first sentence but in the first paragraph would be ok.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. — Czello ^(music) 13:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Those are simple, straightforward facts.

If this was an article on, say, Earth's atmosphere, there is no need to seek consensus before adding: "The sky is blue."

These key facts should have been added yesterday. The fact that it is not stated in Paragraph 1 is indication that Wikipedia is broken. --Concord19 (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

These key facts have been added to the lead section, which has a whole paragraph relating to Trump's legal issues, including the facts that he's been convicted of falsifying records and that he's been found liable for sexual abuse. I don't think there's any real controversy here about whether these things are true, or whether they're significant. The question currently being discussed is whether the felony conviction is significant enough to justify being placed in the first paragraph. I think it is, and I hope the consensus will reflect that. But I also think there are valid points being made against it, by people who are not partisan hacks, in the RfC discussion above. Agreeable-absurdist (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Infobox Photo is Not the Most Appropriate Choice

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.

---

"Official portrait, 2017"

This photo is a poor choice. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Donald Trump's historic notability is not merely that he served as Potus. Unlike all other 44 people who have served as Potus, Trump is the ONLY ONE who has been indicted, arrested, and convicted. Therefore the far more appropriate choice for the top photo selected for this article would be one which instantly, at a single glance, communicates this notability.

No other Potus has had their MUGSHOT taken. No other Potus has had photos taken of them inside a courtroom as a criminal defendant. Even a photo of him arguing about his innocence would be far more appropriate.

Let's revise this with the proper sense of historical context that Wikipedia readers are due. --Concord19 (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Non-starter, but good luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Non-starter? Are you trying to say this issue has been hashed out previously? Today this man is a CONVICTED FELON. Whatever arguments had been presented in past years, past months, or past weeks need to be re-evaluated. --Concord19 (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

It's unencyclopedic and has a blatant political motive reeking of anti-Trump bias. We don't do that here. Go advocate for something that stands a chance in hell of being accepted. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

My flag here has been an advocacy for NPOV. Fact: Donald Trump is a convicted felon. Fact 2: No other Potus has ever been so much as indicted on a single misdemeanor.

There IS a bias. The current photo serves to HIDE this most notable aspect of the 45th US president. Readers deserve neutrality, not a campaign photo. --Concord19 (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Re: "unencyclopedic"

Compare our article here to...

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Donald-Trump

Pro-Trump bias needs to be held in check. Wikipedia is failing at the NPOV requirement. Britannica has a fully appropriate top photo. We DO NOT. --Concord19 (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Best we stick with the current image. He's more notable for having been a US president, rather than being a convict. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Please have a look at the Britannica link. No one is suggesting an orange jumpsuit photo. What's been stressed here is that the current photo of him with a huge, staged smile is not appropriate. --Concord19 (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I did. Britannica has a low-quality photo far too closely cropped and certainly not a mug shot. For all politicians, Wikipedia uses the most recent official photo, regardless of reckless NPOV claims. See current consensus item 1. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Please see the specific recommendation I just posted below. Trump in August 2015. --Concord19 (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Here is a NEUTRAL example:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Donald_Trump_August_19,_2015_(cropped)_3.jpg

August 2015. Him campaigning for Potus, in which he succeeded. Yet also HISTORIC because this is the month he entered into the secret David Pecker Catch & Kill conspiracy. --Concord19 (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I repeat: For all politicians, Wikipedia uses the most recent official photo - God forbid we should allow him to look like a nice guy in his infobox photo. That is not what NPOV was ever intended to mean. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:58, 2 June 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.

Convicted felon

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.

---

The summary should be changed from "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021." to "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, rapist and convicted felon who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021."

source: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/31/briefing/the-conviction-of-donald-j-trump.html or about a million others 176.94.78.33 (talk) 18:40, 2 June 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.

"Trump won the 2016 presidential election" << change to: "Trump was declared winner"

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.

---

The statement from the lede that "Trump won" in 2016 needs to be revised.

The full gravity of yesterday's Guilty verdict includes this new fact, as has now been determined in a court of law, that Trump had been declared winner after FRAUDULENT CRIMINAL activity had corrupted the 2016 Election. The justification for Felony upgrade was unlawful influence of the 2016 presidential election, crimes at both the state and federal level.

Donald Trump was declared winner only after he committed criminal election fraud. At the very minimum, any and every assertion that he "won" needs to be marked with an asterisk. --Concord19 (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

No it does not, as his victory has not been overturned, and until it has he remains the winner. Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

You are not understanding the needed change that has been flagged here. Nothing was said about any election having been overturned.

The point stands:

INCOMPLETE info is being presented to state that "Trump won", and leave it at that, without any qualifications. He was declared the winner after having committed crimes. Crimes done with the specific intent of influencing the election.

Incomplete info is bad info. --Concord19 (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

No, its not incomplete until his victory is overturned he won, simple as that. Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Your contentions are what would go in a partisan op-ed. This is not for an encyclopedia. ~~~ Cecropia (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing partisan whatsoever in what has been flagged here. It is a very simple issue:

Was 2016 a free and fair election?

The jury yesterday determined that crimes were a key part of it. Therefore, 2016 was NOT free and fair. This is a simple fact that needs to be noted. --Concord19 (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

"...a New York jury found him guilty of all 34 charges in a scheme to illegally influence the 2016 election..."

https://apnews.com/article/trump-trial-deliberations-jury-testimony-verdict-85558c6d08efb434d05b694364470aa0

That's just one of many references. --Concord19 (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong Oppose to edit - This is kind of a ridiculous point on it. His victory in 2016 is unchanged by his recent court cases. Even if he committed electoral fraud (which he has not been convicted of), it would not change the fact that he won it. To quote the same source as @Concord19: used later,

Donald Trump became the first former American president to be convicted of felony crimes Thursday as a New York jury found him guilty of all 34 charges in a scheme to illegally influence the 2016 election through a hush money payment to a porn actor who said the two had sex.

— Michael R. Sisak, Jennifer Peltz, Eric Tucker, Michelle L. Price and Jill Colvin, Guilty: Trump becomes first former US president convicted of felony crime

Overall I think any note on his victory is unneeded and should not be added, as he was not found guilty of electoral fraud in any way, and as cited by the court, he was only found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records. While these records may have changed public views in 2016 if released, they are not electoral fraud. No note is needed in this. Donald Trump won the 2016 United States Presidential election, that is a fact and thus Wikipedia should state such.

As well as noted by @Cecropia:, any note in that regard that would be of that nature should go in a political op-ed, it is not meant for Wikipedia, which is an encyclopaedia for knowledge and learning. Furthermore the inclusion of that specific opinion that it would falsify his victory (which is unsubstantiated by the courts) would violate WP:NPOV, and thus would not be beneficial to the goal of knowledge being properly shared with a prospective reader. CIN I&II (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

No one has suggested introducing opinion. But the gaping hole in your rebuttal is that your facts are incorrect.

"...he was only found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records."

No. He was not. If your words were accurate, then Trump would have been found guilty of 34 misdemeanors. The reason he was convicted of 34 felonies is because OTHER CRIMES were committed. You again:

"as he was not found guilty of electoral fraud in any way"

Actually, these other crimes WERE election crimes. Specifically:

§ 17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election.

So your assessment is DEAD WRONG. Trump entered a conspiracy to commit election fraud with David Pecker and others in Aug 2015. This is why the jury asked to have a review of Pecker's testimony. Because Donald Trump was being CONVICTED OF ELECTION FRAUD.

Pecker had absolutely nothing to do with records falsification. And that is the only aspect of these crimes you've recognized. This went far deeper than mere records. --Concord19 (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Here is an excellent source which makes it absolutely clear that what Trump got convicted of was Election Interference:

Trying Trump: A Guide to His First Election Interference Criminal Trial, by Norm Eisen

https://www.amazon.com/Trying-Trump-Election-Interference-Criminal/dp/B0D1BR9333

Our article will remain DEFICIENT until it is plainly communicated that the 2016 Election was corrupted by these criminal acts done by Donald Trump. Actions which he has now been convicted of. --Concord19 (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

OK so by how much did this make a difference, by how many points would he have lost if this was made public? Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I myself have never seen any attempt to quantify the impact.

The FACT of what the jury determined yesterday was that crimes were committed before Nov 8, 2016. And this is the salient info that will be proper to present in our article whenever it states "Trump won".

That is the extent of the Edit Request being presented here. It may be possible that in the future, a reliable source will give the specifics you are asking. --Concord19 (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

THis has nothing to do with whether he would still have won or not, this is wp:or. We mention this court case, this verdict, that is all we can do, not assume it would have had any impact. Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Nowhere have I suggested that anyone edit to indicate what the impact might have been. No one has suggested venturing into OR. What you've been presented with is a reliable source which clearly states that these crimes were done with the intent to influence the election.

This is established FACT. Not established by you nor me. It was determined by the jury.

This article saying that "Trump won" is an incomplete statement. He won after CRIMES WERE COMMITTED. By him. Among others. --Concord19 (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Unless a court says that he was not the rightful winner, he is still the winner. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Please re-read the main point that has been repeated here. No one is suggesting to remove the statement "Trump won". The point is that as of yesterday, it has become improper to say that without including sufficient qualifiers. That Trump was declared winner after Election Law was violated. --Concord19 (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

We could mention the conviction in a subsequent sentence, but I think it is fine as-is. We already mention the Russia stuff in the same paragraph, so nobody is going to think it was a clean election from reading the sentence. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I've just edited the section header to now be the specific recommended change:

"Trump won" < change to: "Trump was declared winner"

And no, I myself do not see it sufficient to only mention Russia. If only one thing is mentioned in this paragraph, I would say it should be this new, far more historic felony conviction that happened as a result of Trump's election fraud conspiracy. --Concord19 (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem. Here on Earth 1, Trump was elected president in 2016, based on The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons ... The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President. He had the greatest number of electoral votes and became president, i.e., something generally referred to as winning the election. (And, yeah, I insist that we keep mentioning that he lost the popular vote by almost 3 million.) Even if we found out now that he not only colluded with the National Enquirer and others to keep unsavory facts from reaching the voting public but also had a bunch of dead people vote for him in select swing states, it still wouldn't change the past. We'd definitely mention the zombies, 'though, just as we mention that he was convicted of felonies. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

"...it still wouldn't change the past."

Au contraire.

Have a look at the Wikipedia article on, say, Lance Armstrong. Look at how many Tour de France bicycle races he won.

This happens quite regularly. If you are CAUGHT CHEATING, no one says "well then, now let's quantify how the finish would have happened if you had not cheated." What happens is that an ASTERISK (*) is noted by your "victory", and a proper comment is presented. Or you are DISQUALIFIED outright, and cleanup efforts are made to make amends for the 'robbery' you committed.

Our job at this stage is to include that proper note. As of right now, no such explanation is presented to accompany this assertion that "Trump won". --Concord19 (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Like others here. I'm not convinced by your arguments & so I oppose the changes you wish to make. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

This discussion should be closed, tbh. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

On what basis? At least three editors have engaged the OP, when they could have simply ignored. That indicates they thought this was discussion-worthy, and it's not for us to say otherwise. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:42, 2 June 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.

Revert of official nomination

See edit

According to these RS Trump is the official nominee...PBS March 2024 - NBC March 2024 - AP News March 2024 etc...etc...

Unless a majority of sources use the word "dominate" I don't think it deserves to be in wikivoice...

I thought about including citations but that isn't where they go. DN (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• Nomination. "Presumptive" until certified. Quoting AP: "But the magnitude of their wins gave each man the delegate majority he needed to claim his party’s nomination at the summertime national conventions." That just means the delegates at the Republican nominating convention will be bound by party rules to vote for Trump to be certified as the party's presidential candidate to get on each state's ballot. (See also the Ohio Republican legislature's attempt to keep Biden off their state ballot because the Democratic nominating convention will take place after Ohio's certification deadline for presidential major party nominees of 90 days before the election, a deadline they gladly amended to 60 days the last time the Republican National Convention took place after the certification deadline (RNC and DNC take turns holding the conventions in July and August). As for the certainty of the nomination, in theory the party could change the rules, the candidate could drop out ...
• Dominate. Are there any RS for the proposed wording "strongly influence"? The subheading of the NYT article says that "Hoarding cash, doling out favors and seeking to crush rivals, the former president is dominating the G.O.P., preparing for another race and helping loyalists oust officials who thwarted his attempted subversion of the 2020 election." CNN: "a look at the data reveals that Trump now is the [Republican] establishment". FT editorial: "Donald Trump now owns the Republicans". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Amusement / trivial

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.

---

Just noted that the in the cited reference "Haberman, Maggie (October 31, 2019). "Trump, Lifelong New Yorker, Declares Himself a Resident of Florida". The New York Times. Retrieved January 24, 2020.", the word "lifelong" also includes as a substring, the word "felon". Weird, huh? Tony 1212 (talk) 19:50, 3 June 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2024

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.

---

Please add Felon to the introduction page as now Donald Trump is the first Ex-president who is also a felon Markhhe (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

This is already in there. RudolfRed (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not.

It says:

"Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021."

It SHOULD say:

"Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and convicted felon who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021." Hazeust (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

There is an active discussion as to whether to include "convicted felon" in the first sentence. This is not circumventable. Until that discussion ends the sentence must remain as it is, as the community workshopped that sentence in 2021 and wishes for it to remain unaltered until a discussion concludes otherwise. —Sirdog (talk) 02:24, 31 May 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.

Convicted felon ~ arbitration committee

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.

---

Why dosent anyone bring this to the committee clearly we have been disagreeing on this for a long long time it’s time to ask the committee John Bois (talk) 07:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Trust me, ArbCom is most definitely aware, and I don't think they can do much. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

They make the final choice in edits John Bois (talk) 12:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

No, they don't. ArbCom is mostly about stuff like user conduct, they don't decide on content. Wikipedia doesn't have an editorial board, consensus between editors is what matters for content. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom does not make any decisions about content in articles, I’m not sure where you got that idea. Their job is to remedy conflicts between users, not make final decisions for pages. Di (they-them) (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Could you imagine if ArbCom had the ability to override a community consensus about content in articles? The community would lose their shit, to say the least. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

What "long long time"? The verdict came down less than a week ago. --Trovatore (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

This page changes every time I look at it and not just minor changes for the sake of integrity of the website this needs to be referred to ArbCom John Bois (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

That is the nature of a wiki. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Let the RFC run its course before deciding there is an issue we need Arbcom to resolve. Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Each day this page changes, Wikipedia is supposed to remain unbiased everyone is pushing a political agenda ArbCom is the best way to do this instead of wasting time John Bois (talk) 12:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Read wp:agf, and then wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Or you could give me a summery John Bois (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

A summery of what? Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

It's summery where I live. 81F today. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Arbcom doesn't make content decisions. ~Awilley (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:ARBINFO. Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 4 June 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.

About the Jan 6 commission

@SPECIFICO: I removed the criminal referral by the Jan 6 commission because AFAICT, the DOJ did not follow it up and actually charge Trump. If my assessment was incorrect, please inform me. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

?? Yes he has been charged. Such referrals do not supercede prosecutors' discretion as to various details. SPECIFICO talk 17:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Were the charges actually related to the Jan 6 referral? Currently, they do not seem related. If they are not related, the referral did not directly lead to charges and my original point stands. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Wealth

You have me at a disadvantage with an unlimited number of bold edits per day vs. three reverts, so for now I'm just venting. The self-funding billionaire business whiz paying $750 in taxes per year because of business losses is not an unimportant detail. As for the WWE, let's wait and see if the wrestling enthusiasts who think it's an important part of his bio will weigh in. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I self-reverted on the income tax part, since I did not realize that that sentence referred to how much he paid for all taxes. As for the WWE, do you actually object to this removal? I really do not see how it is important enough to include here. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the self-revert. WWE: I vaguely remember trimming that section considerably some time ago which was met with considerable resistance. WWE is big in the U.S., and Trump used it to market his persona just like the other shows (Howard Stern, Trumped, Fox and Friends), so IMO the two sentences are justified. But if nobody else objects to their removal, I'm not going to revert. It may result in something wordier, less well sourced being added. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Charges in the Miami case

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I don't think we need to list each and every individual charge in the documents case, when "among other charges" will summarize it. We already use similar wording for the Georgia racketeering case. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Georgia indicted Trump for felonies concerning Georgia, i.e., attempting to overturn the election results in Georgia ("I just need x votes"), attempting to gain access to voting machines, etc., and we only name one charge (racketeering). The charges on the federal level are different, and replacing jointly with a personal aide, single counts of conspiracy to obstruct justice, withholding government documents, corruptly concealing records, concealing a document in a federal investigation and scheming to conceal their efforts with along with several other charges, some being joint charges with a personal aide may not be intended to whitewash but sure looks like it. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense. I am fine with keeping the list of charges. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Facts are facts...list each and every charge..let the courts decide Anonymous8206 (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Inline tag in the lead after being reverted

@Nikkimaria: You made a bold edit to the lead, were reverted, and then tagged the reverted material instead of starting a discussion about the merits of your bold edit on the Talk page. Seems to me that that is an improper use of a tag. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't we already have an active discussion about this going above? QuicoleJR (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

You're right. I didn't even notice that this is the same content Nikkimaria had removed before. Doing it again while the content is under discussion? I started a new discussion because it didn't seem right to add this new tag to a discussion that's been ongoing (slowly) for two weeks, and this tag is for undue weight, not excessive detail. Not sure what to do about this now. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, such tagging is for articles that don't have a lot of competent editors around, and it feels more than a little WP:POINTy. I'd like to see a lot less of it here. Instead, use the damn talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

One of the purposes of that particular tag is to direct people to the talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

"People" already here don't need directing, and I don't recall ever seeing such a tag attract attention from "outside". If that's happened a handful of times, that doesn't justify the article clutter. It's little different from the {{Very long}} tag, which we have already decided to omit as consensus 64. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Are these "/current consensus" pages even real?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Are these "/current consensus" pages even real?. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Home at birth

I am going to revert Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk · contribs)'s removal of the mention of 85-15 Wareham Place. Besides having a Wikipedia article, the location is (as the cite says) the address on Trump's birth certificate. I will reword to clarify this. Ylee (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks to me like he was born while his parents lived on Wareham and they moved to Midland Parkway a few years later, exact date unknown. I don't see why the article couldn't convey both; it doesn't get much more "biographical" than this, and virtually anything pre-presidency is some improvement (where there is no sub-article, as here). Space4T: "Is WP at least getting paid for advertising real estate?" Really? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Really. Did you look at the cite, Newsday Classifieds? You can rent the place at Wareham, fully furnished, comes with a life-size cardboard cutout of Trump. There is a sub-article, Residences of Donald Trump, gets an average of 150 to 200 views per day. It has the addresses of both houses. moved to Midland Parkway a few years later, exact date unknown: 1950. Adding the info that Trump's parents were living at 85-15 Wareham Place is a biographical improvement — really? This won't be the next Lincoln's birthplace historical monument. Trump's birthplace is Jamaica Hospital, and somehow I can't picture them even affixing a plaque honoring the event. The house on Wareham Place made its way into the bio in 2016, wrongly claiming that Trump lived there until Junior High. The cite for this false claim, this NYT article, does not verify it; it says he grew up in the mansion on Midland Parkway. No idea why the place where Trump's parents lived from 1940 to 1950 (with Trump from 1946 until 1950) even has a WP page; seems undue to me. There's a long list of biographical stuff that we cut due to size. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

House flipping 1, house flipping 2, Trump Media stock house flipping 2.5 Quote: Mr. Trump’s childhood home was briefly available for rent on Airbnb, and a plaque memorialized his conception. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ylee: Your reinsertion of the challenged bold edit violated BRD restrictions in effect on this page (see the banner "Warning: active arbitration remedies", above). Please self-revert.
Status quo ante:

Donald John Trump was born on June 14, 1946, at Jamaica Hospital in Queens, New York City,[1] the fourth child of Fred Trump and Mary Anne MacLeod Trump. Trump grew up with older siblings Maryanne, Fred Jr., and Elizabeth and younger brother Robert in the Jamaica Estates neighborhood of Queens, and attended the private Kew-Forest School from kindergarten through seventh grade.[2][3][4] Trump.

Your original edit, addition in bold:

Donald John Trump was born on June 14, 1946, at Jamaica Hospital in Queens, New York City,[1] the fourth child of Fred Trump and Mary Anne MacLeod Trump. Trump grew up with older siblings Maryanne, Fred Jr., and Elizabeth and younger brother Robert at 85-15 Wareham Place in the Jamaica Estates neighborhood of Queens, and attended the private Kew-Forest School from kindergarten through seventh grade.[2][3][4][5]

Current edit:

Donald John Trump was born on June 14, 1946, at Jamaica Hospital in Queens, New York City,[1] the fourth child of Fred Trump and Mary Anne MacLeod Trump, living at 85-15 Wareham Place in Jamaica Estates, Queens, New York. Trump grew up with older siblings Maryanne, Fred Jr., and Elizabeth and younger brother Robert, and attended the private Kew-Forest School from kindergarten through seventh grade.[2][3][4][5]

I challenged the insertion of the content, i.e., the address, both as an undue detail and because it is incorrect - he lived in the mansion much longer than in the Tudor. The current iteration is even worse, IMO, adding his parents' address at the time he was born. I fail to see the significance of either. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Interesting tidbit I would not be aware of if it wasn't in the article for a few hours..... now lost to history because someone doesn't like a link. Moxy🍁 13:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Many interesting tidbits were lost to history because reasons. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering if they all involve the stewards of this article? Moxy🍁 17:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Again? Kind of funny, 'though. I'm usually one of the "stewards" who catch flak for opposing the removal of details. Can't win for losing. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think someone's parents address when they were born belongs in articles unless there is something significant about the address, for example if his parents had lived in Gracie Mansion or Blenheim Palace. TFD (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

+1. Is it really that important when we are already at the point of trying to save space? QuicoleJR (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for violating BRD; I thought that opening a Talk thread would be sufficient compliance for the rule (which I knew applies to the article) for something relatively innocuous as this. I think that the address of Trump's family at the time of his birth is relevant; Trump lived there until the age of four, so it's not like a temporary residency in which his family happened to be on vacation in that week or something, either. I agree that not every home he lived in while growing up is relevant here, or (say) the addresses of his dorms at Fordham and Wharton; residences of Donald Trump, as noted, exists. Trump Tower does appear in this article; it is notable both on its own and as Trump's primary residence for decades. While not quite on that level, I submit that the closest thing to his birthplace is also relevant here.

As for "real estate advertisement", I echo Mandruss (talk · contribs)'s incredulity at the accusation. Since when is Newsday not a RS? I didn't create the Wikipedia article on 85-15 Wareham, so some degree of notability has already been established. Ylee (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for the facetious wording, seemingly directed at you. I was commenting on the most trivial minutiae in Trump's life having been memorialized with WP articles. The house isn't notable. After Trump became the presumptive GOP nominee in 2016, real estate speculators hyped it as Trump's childhood home, and it became part of Trump's "self-made billionaire from humble origins" persona, never mind that he grew up in the 23-room mansion with cook and chauffeur on the other side of the block. I just proposed merging 85-15 Wareham Place into Residences of Donald Trump which already mentions both places. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)