This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

As of writing, the lead has seven paragraphs, and I'm unsure if they benefit the article. The final sentence of MOS:LEAD's lead paragraph recommends four paragraphs. I'm leaning towards suggesting that the paragraphs on his presidency be seen if they can be consolidated into one or two, and maybe consider putting his civil and criminal lawsuits in the same paragraph as his impeachments. What I see as the main issue is that the paragraphs are almost niche focused, and overarching "themes" should be condensed as appropriate. Maybe even see if bits and pieces can be placed into the first sentence and turn it into a multi-sentence paragraph? Just an idea. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 18:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

It says "He Three Supreme Court Justices." I don't imagine that is correct. Hairsonfire ( talk) 19:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Fixed; removed and I mentioned the intended content in the final lead paragraph. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 23:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @ Bill Williams:. I saw that you reverted my edit. Dobbs v. Jackson has frequently been cited as the most enduring legacy of Trump's presidency.

Not mentioning it in the lead is a bit strange. KlayCax ( talk) 23:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it is part of his enduring legacy, but can you point me to a single other article about a President that mentions anything their SCOTUS appointees did in the lead? This is an article about Trump, not the Supreme Court or its justices. They also made other landmark decisions regarding guns (Bruen), Native Americans (McGirt/Castro-Huerta) etc., as did the justices appointed by Obama, Bush etc. This content is not DUE for the lead in an already jam-packed article. Bill Williams 23:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I mean you could say Obama's judges vote in favor of Obergefell (same-sex marriage), or Bush's judges in Heller (2nd amendment). Obergefell and Heller were landmark, but created (not overturned) constitutional rights.

But Roe was almost 50 years old when Dobbs was decided 5-4, and Dobbs was leaked to press before being officially released (not to mention Whole Women's Health v. Jackson (2021) nullified Roe in Texas even before oral arguments in Dobbs). JohnAdams1800 ( talk) 01:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I would mention it, though I would grammatically clarify that it was his 3 SCOTUS judges that overturned Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

Other judges, such as ongoing litigation over the drug mifepristone (i.e. Matthew J. Kacsmaryk) or in WWH v. Jackson (2021) (which the SCOTUS allowed pre-Dobbs being argued and released) shouldn't be included in the lead in my opinion. JohnAdams1800 ( talk) 01:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• I've removed the new content about this because it wasn't sourced at all. Please find reliable sourcing that establishes that Dobbs is indeed part of Trump's legacy and then try and convince the community that it's a big enough part of his legacy to be included in the lead. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 03:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Should the lead of this article be changed to this rewritten version? This aligns with "current consensus" above.

DynaGuy00 ( talk) 01:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I briefly read the rewrite and I think it flows and reads better then the current lead. From my reading of the rewrite I didn't notice anything removed (besides the Dobbs legacy which I've removed from the current lead anyway) and saw only 1 new sentence: Trump has been the subject of significant controversy and critique before, during, and after his presidency. Otherwise, it appears everything else was merely rearranged. However, I could have missed something; so I'll ask DynaGuy00: (1) What content, if any, is actually removed rather than just rearranged? and (2) What content is new? Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 03:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Which items of the current consensus does what part of your rewrite align with? The last time you brought up this rewrite, you said the lead is "poorly written". I just spent some time comparing the versions. If it is so poorly written, why are you mostly shuffling sentences around? Example:

Current version: He expanded the company's operations to building and renovating skyscrapers, hotels, casinos and golf courses, and later started side ventures, mostly by licensing his name. From 2004 to 2015, he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice. Trump and his businesses have been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, including six bankruptcies.

New: He expanded the company's operations to building and renovating skyscrapers, hotels, casinos and golf courses, and later started side ventures, mostly by licensing his name. Trump and his businesses have been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, including six bankruptcies. He also co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice from 2004 to 2015.’’

IMO, that’s not an improvement. The current version mentions his career(s), and then the legal actions he and his businesses were involved in. Your mention appears to make the point that the legal actions had nothing to do with the Apprentice, which, BTW, isn’t the case ( discrimination, idea theft, pitching a failed videophone on the show, Zervos defamation suit).

Your rewrite is 44 characters longer than the current one. You removed "in an aggressive attempt to weaken environmental protections" (anything else?). What did you add? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Is this change agreeable? Changing the statement that Trump became the only president to be twice impeached to the (sourced/verifiable) statement that he became the only officeholder to be twice impeached by the U.S. House.

There appears to be disagreement of the gist of consensus that the last discussion this talk page had on it. I believe that the last discussion largely accepted broadening the claim when that was substantively discussed, but objected to using the word "individuals" (hence why this latest edit used the term "officeholders"

By limiting the statement to "president", we leave it unclear whether other officeholders have been twice impeached federally in the U.S. In fact, by the deliberate language that limits the claim solely to "president" it might reasonably be falsely inferred by readers that this wording choice was due to the existence of other officeholder(s) that have been the subject of multiple impeachments. However, by wording it as "officeholder", there is no mistaking this, and its is understood that this means he was the first president as presidents are entirely encompassed by the word "officeholder" SecretName101 ( talk) 18:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I would say he's the first "person" to be twice impeached. "President" you correctly note is too narrow, but "officeholder" feels very clunky to me. Loki ( talk) 04:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

As I've said in the recent previous discussion, the larger pool of eligible personnel doesn't make the two impeachments more significant, the importance of the office does. How many readers even know that officeholders other than the president are subject to impeachment and, if so, which ones? Why would some of those readers falsely infer that other officeholder(s) ... have been the subject of multiple impeachments instead of being removed from office or care about them? The NBC source is about the House impeachment managers bringing it up "as an example of the Senate holding an impeachment trial for an official who's no longer in office." (It resulted in the Senate determining in 1799 that senators are not "civil officers" and therefore not subject to impeachment). How is this important for Trump's two impeachments? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I mean, the whole lead of this article just talks about how bad of a president he was. Memer15151 ( talk) 22:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@ Memer15151: Thank you for the comment. You are hardly the first to lodge such a complaint, but they always come from readers who don't understand the relevant Wikipedia policies. Please read the short page, Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias, and I hope it will change your perspective. ― Mandruss  ☎ 23:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

This is the standard. Would someone please fix this? Ramanujaner ( talk) 18:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Someone moved it into the Donald_Trump#Russian_election_interference section "to avoid image stacking at the beginning of the article". I just moved it back. Doesn't cause any crowding problems in Vector 2010. In Vector 2022, it pushes Trump's high school photo down into the "Health habits" section but that's the only "stacking". IMO that's preferable to the series box way down in the body. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

While this statement in the lead is technically accurate, I think that it could be confusing to others.

"making him the first former U.S. president to face criminal charges"

President Grant was arrested while in office. Could it be edited to say something like "the first US president to be arrested since Ulysses S. Grant in 1872. Making note to be the only president arrested after leaving office..." Not stuck on the wording but I think the information is important. Michael-Moates ( talk) 14:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

i don't think this article is the place for possibly-apocryphal trivia, no, even if the Grant "arrest" did occur, it was the equivalent of a traffic citation. ValarianB ( talk) 14:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/03/1167683136/ulysses-s-grant-was-the-first-president-to-be-arrested

According to this article, Grant never faced criminal charges, although he was arrested. So, based on this, the current wording is fine IMO. Cessaune [talk] 17:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

It isn't confusing. Trump is still the only U.S. president (former or sitting) to have been indicted on criminal charges. Grant was stopped and cited for "speeding" (racing a horse-drawn buggy down M Street). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Grant never faced criminal charges, so that's pretty irrelevant to Trump being charged with felony offences. Bill Williams 23:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

There is outdated information in the "Indictment" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4041:5A8F:2E00:AC72:D920:2091:FF73 ( talk) 20:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a problem with the infobox, specifically on "Criminal charges". - Someone, please fix it. Felixsj ( talk) 14:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Which is? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I think Felixsj speaks of the following wikitext:

|data1 = Criminal charges

data1 does not appear to be a supported parameter in the infobox because it is rendered as {{{blank1}}}. I have no idea how to fix this. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 14:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I have no problem with the consensus, but I want to add this correction as a second source. The consensus is based on this discussion. Two editors stated in that discussion that her mother was Austrian, based on information in Ivana Trump’s article at the time (I corrected it in this edit). That was disinformation the Trumps had fed to the press to hide the fact that Ivana had married Austrian skier Alfred Winkelmayr to obtain an Austrian passport and be allowed to legally leave communist Czechoslovakia. They officially admitted it in 1990 during the divorce proceedings. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you need to clarify what you want to do. Bob K31416 ( talk) 16:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I just did it. If anyone objects, I'll revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@ Space4Time3Continuum2x: After a bit of thought, I'll object to that. It wasn't subjected to discussion, so can't be a part of the consensus, so shouldn't be a "source" of consensus 34. It's little different from creating a new consensus item containing nothing but your own comments. I suggest you save that for when #34 gets challenged, if ever. ― Mandruss  ☎ 20:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@ Mandruss: That's assuming I outlive Wikipedia or the internet or electricity. I reverted. Maybe I should inform JFG that WP is not a reliable source. So, you're semi-back? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Moved to User talk:Szmenderowiecki Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 10:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

ping|Szmenderowiecki: You wrote that WP:ONUS dictates that it is up to those seeking to include content to rally consensus. As of the moment of writing, the sentence is included in the article. A discussion preceded this RfC. Were you under the impression that the sentence was added recently since you mentioned the discussion that took place a month ago? The sentence was added to the section almost three years ago. WP:ONUS says that "[t]he responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." That's a bit vague but I read that to mean "those seeking to add disputed content." The proponents of the RfC were seeking to remove long-standing content. The RfC proposer's question "Should the sentence below be included in the article (as it is now)" may have led some readers to believe that it is recently added content. The proposer should have asked whether "the sentence below should be removed from the article." Also, this cute move, u|Iamreallygoodatcheckers, really? I haven’t decided whether I want to do something about this or not, so for now I’m unarchiving the RfC to see what other editors think. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

(This wasn't meant to be a private discussion, so copying my comment back to this page. Responses by Szmenderowiecki and Iamreallygoodatcheckers at User_talk:Szmenderowiecki#Mark_Milley_apology_close. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC))

• Bad close and canvassing Please reverse the close, restore the text, and await experienced Admin close. Also, let's not jump to immediate archving of significant discussions, even long ones that take up lots of talk page space. SPECIFICO talk 15:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• The closer was correct in determining that there was no consensus for the material, and yes they are correct in removing it per WP:BLPRESTORE which says, ...the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material... If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. WP:STATUSQUO is not a valid argument to keep because this is a BLP (it even mentions at STATUSQUO the BLP exemption). There should not be a push to include material that there is clearly no consensus for in this BLP. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  A very disappointing comment and pure equivocation. There was no BLP issue with this article text. SPECIFICO talk 17:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  How does WP:BLPRESTORE apply to the sentence in question (also, the closer didn't mention it)? To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections. WP:STATUSQUO: "unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material" in BLP's? Neither you nor any of the other supporters of your proposal questioned the neutrality and writing standard of the sentence or the reliability of its source. Your argument boiled down to "off-topic". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  When something is being mentioned in the article that is off-topic that means it inherently lacks weight, which falls under WP:NPOV; therefore, it is a NPOV violation. Yes, the closer did not cite BLPRESTORE, but that doesn't mean it doesn't apply. Furthermore, they did cite WP:NOCON, and the BLP exemption under NOCON is more or less the same thing as BLPRESTORE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close Speaking as an admin who was not involved in the original discussion: The close is fine. It's a reasonable reading of the consensus that WP:ONUS has not been established to include the material, and that's a reasonable reading of Wikipedia policy as well. -- Jayron 32 17:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Jayron, glad to see you here as an Admin who's also familiar with American Politics subject matter.

  Now, here's why I think you're wrong on this: First, "reasonable" is way too weak a test for the close of a month-long discussion on a contentious topic. Second, the closer cites those many who said this page is not about Milley, etc. But those !voters did not address the many explanations as to why this content is more about Trump than Milley the man, and further that its media weight had little to do with Milley man, and everything to do with his unprecedented and urgent rebuke of Trump. Finally, yes some editors view ONUS that way but as you know the interpretation of ONUS as to standing content is highly controversial and has been disputed for years on the V talk page. We have recently seen too many eager, inexperienced non-Admin closes on Contentious Topics. It's repeatedly led to trouble, wasting editor time and morale and though the closers are well-intentioned, it is not worth the waste of editors' time and morale or faith in consensus-building on CT pages. SPECIFICO talk 18:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  I mean, that's your reading of the discussion. That someone else interprets the comments and weights the responses differently than you would have doesn't mean they were wrong in doing so, especially since your analysis is colored by the fact that you have a pony in the race. The advantage of leaning on the side of the closer in a close call over your analysis is that they don't. -- Jayron 32 12:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  Wow, Jayron. Please don't suggest that my comment is intended or motivated by a POV or view about content. Maybe I'm concerned about inexperienced non-Admin closes on difficult issues in CT articles? That would be the simplest explanation. The close should not depend on their interpretation of the controversial issue RE: ONUS. Moreover, if I understand you correctly, you take a questionable position that the issue RE: consensus and ONUS should be interpreted in your and the closer's way notwithstanding that this article has functioned for years by observing established items of consensus, many of them implicit consensus, and protects reinstatement of longstanding text as such. SPECIFICO talk 13:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  I mean, it says "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." If consensus doesn't exist, then it isn't included. That's only controversial when it's information you want in the article. Look, it's quite clear you intend to badger every that doesn't have an opinion that exactly matches yours. You asked for neutral, third party opinions on the close. I have not been involved in the discussion, or any related matters. I gave my opinion. I have no intention of allowing myself to be hassled anymore. You don't win just because you make more comments. Your opinion is the best documented opinion on the matter, but you are still only afforded the weight due to one person, no matter how many times you comment. -- Jayron 32 14:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  What would be most constructive, I think (if you wish to continue volunteering your time to this little issue) would be for you to provide a reasoned close that takes account of all the arguements, sourcing, and rebuttals of the removal-advocates. Who knows? Maybe the close was correct. But the closing statement and the "endorse" comments in this thread certainly give no solid reasoned summary and evaluation of the !votes and arguments. SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  The closer left a multi-paragraph explanation of their evaluation of the votes and arguments; it would be difficult for me to add anything more that is worth saying. -- Jayron 32 15:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close - It's best we accept the decision & move on. GoodDay ( talk) 20:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn close—while my thoughts do align with GoodDay's above, in that we should really be finding something better to do with our time, the close felt biased to me from the beginning. It did support the outcome I wanted, and I'm not too sure reclosing will change the outcome, but I think reversing it is necessary, if only to uphold policy. I don't have much to say; Space4T explains why it was a bad close nicely above. Cessaune [talk] 22:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Reminder — As indicated in the message by Szmenderowiecki at the top of this section, there is a discussion at User_talk:Szmenderowiecki#Mark_Milley_apology_close, where the closer has been responding to comments about the closing. Bob K31416 ( talk) 01:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures. Bob K31416 ( talk) 11:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Recommend taking the closure challenge to WP:AN, fwiw. GoodDay ( talk) 14:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Why, Good Day? That is a last resort that has all the perils of any drama board thread, not least of which is a huge drain on editor resources for a relatively minor matter of detail. Why do you recommend that. A simple "recommend" does not have much weight. SPECIFICO talk 15:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Seems to have come to a stand still, on this BLP's talkpage. GoodDay ( talk) 15:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

And so you propose stirring up a swarm of nonsense at AN? I don't get it. Why would you recommend restarting what you think is a dead issue? SPECIFICO talk 16:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Let's ask @ Space4Time3Continuum2x:, what they wish to do next. Withdraw challenge or bring it to WP:AN. GoodDay ( talk) 16:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I haven’t decided whether I want to do something about this or not, so for now I’m unarchiving the RfC to see what other editors think wasn't a challenge. So now two weeks later we have a few evenly split opinions, three "bad close" and three "endorse close". Looks like a dead issue to me until the arrival of Milley's memoir. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you need to clarify your position. Are you saying that you weren't challenging the close with your opening remarks and that challenging the close is a "dead issue" and should not be pursued now? Bob K31416 ( talk) 10:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, yes, and yes. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The current audio box on file is great (I was the one who sourced it afterall), however in hindsight the audio quality of Trumps voice is a bit lower quality compared to the other presidents. Given the purpose of the voice box is to make sure the person it represents voice is clear and properly articulated I think it might be best to replace it with another similar, short, non-partisan, and more clear voice box. As such, I have provided one below in both the .ogg format and with a link for listening on wikimedia in advance to publishment.

File:Donald Trump Ordering Missile Attacks in Retaliation for Syrian Chemical Strikes.ogg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Donald_Trump_Ordering_Missile_Attacks_in_Retaliation_for_Syrian_Chemical_Strikes.ogg

I think if you compare the differences in audio quality between the two sources the one I am currently recommending does have a notable increase in audio quality overall largely due to the fact the current audio source was taken from an outside commencement address which unfortunately causes some tepid interference with optimal audio quality. The audio from this file in question is in reference to the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack and was recorded April 6, 2017 if that information is needed for proper audio replacement. Again, the audio I have presented here remains heavily neutral but more importantly provides a clearer quality of his voice for potential readers which I feel is more important overall and also is what the voice box was designed to do to begin with. LosPajaros ( talk) 01:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Voicing my support again. It's higher quality, and it's consistent with foreign-policy-focused voice files for other Presidents. I put it in a month ago, and it was reverted here, with a rationale I disagree with. DFlhb ( talk) 08:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Adding links to previous discussions. The consensus a month ago was to "add something", and three weeks before that to not use the "Big Lie". How do George H. W. Bush’s comments on receiving a medal, Reagan’s comments on civil rights, Ford’s comments at his swearing-in ceremony, Johnson’s comments on the passing of the Civil Rights Act fit into your alleged tradition/custom of a "foreign-policy-focused voice file"? The voice file should be representative of the way Trump speaks, and the proposed one isn’t, neither in pitch nor modulation. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

There's Obama, GWB, Clinton, Carter, Nixon, Truman, and FDR; all foreign policy-focused. Objective3000 brought up "historic" as a criteria to use, which is a criteria met by voice files in all presidential BLPs. The Syria strike audio is representative of how he speaks with a teleprompter, which covers almost all his presidency. Do you really think we should pick an audio where he slurs words, which you described as a "monotonous drone"? That would be as inappropriate here as it would be at Joe Biden. DFlhb ( talk) 16:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

O3000 also said that we won't know until years from now whether s.th. was a historical event. Biden (BTW, also not a foreign policy-focused clip, and I doubt that his COVID infection meets the "historic" standard) sounds pretty much the same as he always does, Trump doesn't. Here's a compilation of typical Trump speech, including the info at 2:28 that the Spanish Flu in 2017 ended the Second World War because all the soldiers were sick. A twofer, can't get more historical than that. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, his speech in the compilation you've given is of him speaking very casually which is something that is expected to differ with a more reserved and forthright presidential speech. Obama himself sounds notably more consistent in tone in his announcement of the assassination of Osama bin Laden then he would giving a casual speech promoting his book on the Jimmy Kimmel Show. the same is said for all prior presidents too. Trump is of course going to be slightly more stilted in his speaking pattern because the announcement of strikes themselves were a matter of serious international importance (at least at the time). In the same way Johnson would not act crass and vulgar while giving his address on Civil Rights despite him having no qualms with doing so on the telephone when ordering pants with wider in-seems. In the same way Reagan speaks differently on his leaked call with Nixon then he does when giving his address to "tear down this wall!". All leaders talk differently when addressing different crowds and Trump is no different. To be perfectly honest, I think the source I provided actually does a better job at coming closer to his most casual speaking style as the Space Command Address is notably more stilted then the announcment of air strikes. So if the ultimate goal of the audio file is to get a video of him at his most off-guard and unaware of being perceived, I still think this audio file provides a better edge towards that end goal (even if I disagree that that's what the purpose of the audio file is to be). Additionally, I want to reiterate that the file in question does have a notable increase in audio and voice quality. Even if you perceive this audio clip to have no change whatsoever in terms of the "accuracy" of his speaking voice, the audio is substantially clearer and more free of outside interference. This difference in clarity alone should be valid enough for a change given the neutrality of the event is not in question. LosPajaros ( talk) 23:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

representative of how he speaks with a teleprompter — no. Reading off the teleprompter: from Chili to the oranges of the investigation. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

We're now using clickbait "worst of" compilations as a metric for "representativeness" in an encyclopedia. Meanwhile, scholars from top journals arguing he caused historic harm to democracy: section goes off-topic, subsection gets ignored. Jon Stewart, as ever, was right. Sigh. DFlhb ( talk) 18:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

the current file sounds fine to me. all we want here is a sample of the subject's speech, we're not going for hi-fi Marvin Gaye here. ValarianB ( talk) 12:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Definitely sounds more natural, but it's uncharacteristically slow. I Like it a little better. Cessaune [talk] 13:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The Space Command audio sounds clear to me, no worse than the missile attack audio. (I don’t have $400 computer speakers or headphones, so there’s that.) What do you mean by "properly articulated", as in Trump not slurring words? is what the voice box was designed to do to begin with - is that explained anywhere (MOS, etc.)? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I guess I can perceive the audio quality differences a bit more because I have a relatively new computer so that might be a reason for our lack of mutual agreement on audio quality. That being said, when I was referring to "properly articulated" I was trying to highlight whether or not there was a clear consistent speaking pattern present of the person within the audio that is more in line with their natural cadence. In Trump's case that difference in cadence comes across more strongly in the Space Force Audio then it does in the Air Strike audio. He does speak relatively slow in both but overall he comes off significantly less stilted in the latter audio than the former. Also, and this is a side note, in the clip he does an aside where he talks to an onlooker where there is a dip in volume as he's away from the mic so the audio currently in use is not consistent in that regard either. LosPajaros ( talk) 01:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I proposed a Democratic backsliding section in January, which was not discussed in depth. I'm now presenting an improved version. This section is not about Trumpism, but about Trump's direct impact on America's democracy. It is sourced solely to scholarly sources, which is far better than most of our article. And it uses these sources to put forward an analytical appraisal, which our articles needs more of. I use two sources: a study by Yascha Mounk and Stefan Foa, published in the high-impact factor Policy Studies Journal. And a book written by two scholars, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, called How Democracies Die, which The Economist described as "the most important book of the Trump era", and which we don't currently use. The heading could be "Flouting of democratic norms", or "Abandonment of democratic norms".

Political scientists have analyzed Trump's presidency as both a cause and a consequence of America's increasing polarization. Levitszky and Ziblatt say that Trump benefited from a democracy weakened by "extreme partisan polarization", and was the first U.S. president in the last century to meet all four criteria of their "litmus test for autocrats": a weak commitment to democratic norms, delegitimization of political opponents, toleration and encouragement of political violence, and a willingness to curb the civil liberties of opponents and critics. ^[1] Foa and Mounk say Trump disregarded democratic norms through his tacit or active endorsement of vigilante groups, his lack of commitment to respecting electoral outcomes, and his lack of repudiation of political violence, which weakened the country's "institutional equilibrium", and may "prove to be his most damaging legacy". ^[2]

Please don't just treat this as an up-or-down vote, which would make it hard to reach a consensus.

DFlhb ( talk) 23:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I’m not convinced this adds much to what’s already in this BLP. For example, this BLP already discusses the problem respecting electoral outcomes. It may be worth pointing out that political polarization created fertile ground for his election in 2016, but perhaps political polarization is already common knowledge. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 23:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

We do already cover election denial and incitement to violence, but we lack anything about the resulting hard-to-reverse damage to American democracy, which is echoed by many other sources (I just picked the two WP:BESTSOURCES, which happen to frame it the most conservatively rather than calling him an "authoritarian" like many other WP:RS). The word norm doesn't appear in our article, despite plentiful sourcing. DFlhb ( talk) 00:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Your proposed paragraph appears to be an example of what it mentions, "extreme partisan polarization", since the paragraph reads like a one-sided attack piece. However, in that regard it is somewhat consistent with the rest of the article, so it's hard to exclude it for that reason. Bob K31416 ( talk) 00:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Focusing on norms would be fine, but then it would be necessary to discuss other norms, like the norm of not indicting a former president, or repeatedly impeaching him, or marshaling the intelligence community in an effort to label him a foreign agent, etc etc. Norms work both ways. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

They do work both ways, as Foa & Mounk describe (it's on Sci-Hub), which is why norm violations are dangerous. My previous version included a (peer-reviewed) analysis by Steven Simon that made this point more explicit; I'd be happy to re-include him. But I don't think sources support the idea that the things you list were partisan efforts by Democrats. DFlhb ( talk) 01:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Please don't write nonsense like "norm of not indicting a former president." SPECIFICO talk 01:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

"The expected prosecution of Trump shatters an unwritten American political norm and brings the United States more in line with dozens of other nations, including democracies such as South Korea, Brazil, France, Italy and Israel, that have criminally charged, convicted and in many cases jailed former leaders." ^[1]

This statement about norms is not nonsense at all, User:SPECIFICO. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 04:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

unwritten norm. It's a cherry-picked quote from a long article citing legal scholars and historians on how and why this happened/had to happen (short version: because the U.S. is not a banana republic). Do you have any sources for the other "norms" you mention (not indicting a former president, not impeaching a sitting president more than once, and "marshaling the intelligence community")? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I disagree it’s “cherry-picked”, and I’m not eager to find more sources that you can then call cherry-picked too. The point I was making is that breaking some norms is widely viewed as good, breaking some norms is widely viewed as bad, and Trump has both broken norms and been the target of norm-breakers. These are my present comments about how to research and write a paragraph about Trump and norms. I’m not proposing any such paragraph, just responding to a user who sounded like he might want to research and write such a paragraph. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 17:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

LOL. MANDY. Of course it's not cherrypicked. OK. SPECIFICO talk 17:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I understand “LOL” (which is no more persuasive than “ROFLMAO” would be) but I don’t understand why you mention “MANDY”. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 17:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Nobody was really expecting you to acknowledge that it was cherrypicked. That would be flouting the norm. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, I think you made a good point with your source and they didn't. I've seen the false cherry-picked accusation made before, where 3 supporting RS (CNN, Washington Post, and New York Times) all had the supporting material for the same item in both the title and body. It's nonsense but it seems to fly on this talk page if it supports an anti-Trump position. Maybe that will change someday. Who knows. Bob K31416 ( talk) 19:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

SPECIFICO and Space4T, simply shouting that something is 'cherrypicked! cherrypicked!' without providing a rebuttal source/sources or justifying why said excerpt is cherrypicked by actually analyzing the source is a useless, time-wasting exercise. It's a cherry-picked quote from a long article citing legal scholars and historians on how and why this happened/had to happen (short version: because the U.S. is not a banana republic) is not an analyzation of the source (or at least not what I would consider a good one), and you provided no sources to stuff that disproves the point Anything is trying to make. Please actually prove your point instead of stating a point as if it's a fact into the air so we can move forward (the subsequent snarky comments after the inital cherrypicking comment affirm this claim; SPECIFICO, you literally state ...nobody was really expecting you to acknowledge that it was cherrypicked as if the fact that Anything's statement is cherrypicked is an undisputed truth). Speaking of the snark, SPECIFICO, I fully condemn it. Especially considering that you didn't actually justify your own point (neither did Space4T, who made the original cherrypicking accusation) and only put it out there in an 'my point is obviously correct' kind of way, and then used that false assertion that the cherrypicking performed by Anything is a fact rather than your opinion as a conduit into language that, best case scenario, is unnecessary/ill-timed, and, worst case scenario, lowers editor morale, causes unnecessary annoyance, incentivizes constant talk page screaming, and creates a hostile editing environment where people feel like !voting and RfCs are the only way to actualy get things done. This practice of yelling 'cherrypicked! cherrypicked!' without even an attempt to prove that statement needs to stop.

Note that this doesn't necessarily mean that the cherrypicking accusation isn't correct. However, I agree with Anything's statement, and, going off of the source provided, Anything's statement above IMO isn't cherrypicked. Key quotes:

The expected prosecution of Trump shatters an unwritten American political norm and brings the United States more in line with dozens of other nations, including democracies such as South Korea, Brazil, France, Italy and Israel, that have criminally charged, convicted and in many cases jailed former leaders.

“Anyone who is worried that this will be the beginning of a pattern of indicting past presidents is right to be worried,” said Jill Lepore, a Harvard University historian and author.

“It’s the failure to indict Mr. Trump simply because he was once the president that would say we were well on the way to becoming a banana republic,” said Laurence Tribe, a Harvard University legal scholar.

“Part of it has also been an unfortunate view that ex-presidents deserve some kind of monarchical immunity that normal citizens do not,” [Michael Beschloss] said. “How do you explain to someone who steals toothpaste from a drugstore that they are more subject to American law than a president is?

This isn't cherrypicking at all IMO. It seems obvious to me that the source is presenting both sides of the argument in tandem. They can both be used effectively to argue the point that 'while indicting a former president and major presidential candidate breaks a clear American norm and may set a very dangerous precedent, it does not mean that we shouldn't do so, and, in fact, not doing so might set an equally dangerous precedent'. This is definitely more in line with Anything's line of reasoning than the cherrypicking line of reasoning IMO, as Anything's claim is something that was explicitly stated: unwritten American norm being broken here, which is not disproven by any claim later on. The cherrypicking claim above tries to state that the article is talking about the reasons why Trump's indictment is necessary. Again, it seems pretty obvious to me that that isn't the case and that the article isn't actually arguing a point but simply characterizing the two sides, which aren't even really sides because you can believe in both simultaneously and be wholly correct. Cessaune [talk] 02:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

This is Anything’s comment I was "snarking" about: Focusing on norms would be fine, but then it would be necessary to discuss other norms, like the norm of not indicting a former president, or repeatedly impeaching him, or marshaling the intelligence community in an effort to label him a foreign agent, etc etc. Norms work both ways. They then later contradicted Specifico's opinion that that sentence is nonsense with the article in question. I don’t even support adding DFlhb’s or your proposed text to the article but Anything turned DFlhb's a weak commitment to democratic norms, delegitimization of political opponents, toleration and encouragement of political violence, and a willingness to curb the civil liberties of opponents and critics "exactly backwards and upside-down" - and that’s quoting Laurence Tribe as quoted in the WaPo article, the part you did not quote: "It’s the failure to indict Mr. Trump simply because he was once the president that would say we were well on the way to becoming a banana republic," said Laurence Tribe, a Harvard University legal scholar who taught Barack Obama and advised his presidential campaign and administration. "Those who fear that indicting a former president would say that U.S. democracy is in trouble have it exactly backwards and upside-down." Here’s another "key quote" (now I'm snarking about your "key points") from the same article: But many scholars of the Constitution and the executive branch say the charges demonstrate the strength of U.S. democracy, proving that not even a former president is above the law. My last point about the article: none of the quoted scholars and historians mention the word "norm". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

1) The snark comment was directly aimed at SPECIFICO, not you.

2) I did quote the Laurence Tribe thing, just not the last sentence. I thought that what I had quoted was sufficient to prove the point you just made above.

3) The last sentence you quote, if anything, reinforces my point that the article wasn't actually making a point, especially when juxtaposed with the earlier ...several said it was a moment that could open a new era of legal peril for former presidents, including the possibility of tit-for-tat, politically motivated prosecutions. It's just a chacterization of the two 'sides' of the argument. Maybe that weakens Anything's point, but it's definitely not cherrypicking. Right? Maybe I'm wrong. Cessaune [talk] 12:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

You’re wrong, and I was the one who said "cherry-picked", not Specifico. DFhlb’s attributed proposal says that Trump met "all four criteria of their 'litmus test for autocrats’" and disregarded democratic norms through endorsements of vigilantes, not accepting electoral outcomes, and not rejecting political violence. Anything countered with "what-about". No sitting president having been impeached twice, no former president having been indicted prior to Trump - that’s history, an unwritten "norm" only because it hadn’t happened before. And "marshaling the intelligence community" - I don’t know which conspiracy theory that’s referring to, but it’s definitely not mentioned in the WaPo article which deals with opinions on whether Trump should be indicted. Also, the article was written before Trump’s arraignment. Trump wasn’t handcuffed, there were no MAGA riots, and New Yorkers shouted down Greene and made her tuck tail and run. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I was only referring to the specific issue of indictment, not the broader context. The entire phrase by Anything—like the norm of not indicting a former president, or repeatedly impeaching him, or marshaling the intelligence community in an effort to label him a foreign agent, etc etc.—I don't necessarily agree with. Only the first phrase. And, as I thought was clear, the source provided by Anythin is only an attempt to justify the first part of the phrase, not the entire thing.

Statements like that’s history, an unwritten "norm" only because it hadn’t happened before are potentially true, but where's the RS to qualify it? Anything provided one. Cessaune [talk] 15:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Another quote you quoted partially: Michael Beschloss, a presidential historian and author, said the long U.S. tradition of not indicting former presidents is partly because "in general, presidents did not misbehave, in a criminal sense, to a degree that would have made that seem urgent." "Part of it has also been an unfortunate view that ex-presidents deserve some kind of monarchical immunity that normal citizens do not," he said. "How do you explain to someone who steals toothpaste from a drugstore that they are more subject to American law than a president is?" Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, the fact that I partially quoted the quote was merely logistical and not an intentional omission. My point above still stands. Cessaune [talk] 17:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I would definitely use the scholars' first names. Who is "Foa"? No first name makes it harder to look them up online, and stylistically, it's just weird IMO. Secondly, I kind of hate it. Though these four may be subject-matter experts, I don't think their opinions on Trump are relevant enough to include as a broad chacterization of the man. I would grab a bunch of subject-matter experts, preferably 8-10, and do something like this (I just made up stuff that scholars might say for the sake of example):

Several political scientists have analyzed Trump's presidency... Steven Levitszky and Daniel Ziblatt say that Trump benefited from a democracy weakened by "extreme partisan polarization"... [Person C] and [Person D] argue that Trump's practice of hiring far-right advocates and "often implicit, occasionally explicit" support for far-right causes "emblodened the far-right and alt-right to a degree unheard of in contemporary American politics, one that sets a dangerous precedent"... [Person E] argues that "[Trump's] systematic subversion of the traditional notions of American presidency, and the excessive amounts of lies, falsehoods and denials told to further his false narratives... may be the most damaging parts of his legacy"...

Something like that. Cessaune [talk] 02:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for your solid feedback. See new proposal below. DFlhb ( talk) 20:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, I have to admit that Trump was the first US president (in my lifetime) to put up such a commotion to overturn a prez election result. So... whatever yas decide on this 'topic', is acceptable. GoodDay ( talk) 21:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Refined proposal

New proposal, improved based on Cessaune's suggestion:

Under Trump's presidency, scholarly assessments of the state of U.S. democracy have sharply declined (see the V-Dem and BLW surveys), ^{[1] [2]} with leading scholars arguing that America was experiencing democratic backsliding. ^{[3] [4] [5]} Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt say Trump was the first U.S. president in the last century to meet all four criteria of their "litmus test for autocrats": a weak commitment to electoral outcomes, delegitimization of political opponents, toleration and encouragement of political violence, and a willingness to curb the civil liberties of opponents and critics. ^[6] Robert R. Kaufman and Stephan Haggard contend that Trump deepened America's political polarization and tribalism, though he was limited by institutional safeguards. ^[7] According to Michael W. Bauer, Stefan Becker, and Charles T. Goodsell, Trump sabotaged the administrative state by delaying 1,200 political appointments, politicizing vital departments, nominating heads of the EPA and CFPB who openly opposed their agencies' mission, issuing new policies without consulting his cabinet, and attacking the independence of the Federal Reserve and the intelligence community. ^{[8] [9]} Roberto Foa and Yascha Mounk argue that Trump's tacit or active endorsement of vigilante groups may "prove to be his most damaging legacy", marking America's shift into a "dirty democracy" where "tit-for-tat partisan norm-breaking" is normalized. ^[10]

DFlhb ( talk) 20:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Was there anything in those sources that was critical of democrats' and news media's treatment of Trump? Or showed any defense of the criticism against Trump? Bob K31416 ( talk) 20:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

None criticize the treatment of Trump. The closest are Levitsky & Ziblatt, and Foa & Mounk. Levitsky (chapter 9) condemns calls by journalists and some progressives to "fight like Republicans" or "take a page from the GOP playbook" as dangerous escalation, but they don't bring up anything that would be due (for example, early attempts to impeach Trump by Maxine Waters before he'd committed any crimes, or calls to "obstruct everything" by some journalists). Foa criticizes calls to pack the court and "taciturn" condemnations of vigilantism (Antifa). Again, not due in this article. DFlhb ( talk) 21:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It strikes me as too long and detailed. I don't think that each evaluation needs to be attributed in text. The first 3 sentences, with some copyeding seem like enough. Also the first sentence reads weird because it circles around instead of just stating Trump did this. SPECIFICO talk 22:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Going along with what SPECIFICO said above, it's a bit lengthy. Three or four sentences would be good, and the beginning needs to be workshopped a bit, but I like it otherwise. Cessaune [talk] 03:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd support removing the second part of the first sentence; and removing the Foa & Mounk sentence. I'd also replace "According to Michael W. Bauer, Stefan Becker, and Charles T. Goodsell" with just "According to public administration scholars" which is more concise. If anyone is concerned that these three scholars may be non-representative, we can add a few more citations ( bundled): [1], [2], [3]. — DFlhb ( talk) 10:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

So Trump is an autocrat, but he was voted out of office, and his attempts to overturn the results were unsuccessful. I oppose adding a democratic backsliding section - there’s a Democratic backsliding in the United States article. Quoting one of the cited sources (Carey, Helmke, et al): "It is too early to say whether the long-term quality of democracy in the United States will suffer." It’s too early to assess whether and, if so, how much of this belongs in Trump’s personal bio - there are others involved, from the Federalist Society, McConnell’s Republican-majority Senate, the deep pockets of the Kochs, Mercers, Thiel, to Fox News. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Mandruss, I'm directly challenging this revert. Rough consensus is an unnecessary sub-characterization of consensus, especially given the fact that no other consensus item contains anything of the sort. Even more especially since Space4T literally talks about this specific consensus on their user page (one which went against the opinion they !voted for in the lead-linking RfC, the opinion Space4T has advocated for for a while now) and is the editor who decided to include the rough consensus characterization initially. It's a completely fair characterization, no doubt, but one that has no real reason to exist, which is why it shouldn't. Cessaune [talk] 08:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I hold no position on that, except that it shouldn't have been changed without some kind of agreement on this page, as I said in my revert. We're here with that (thank you), so I'm happy. ― Mandruss  ☎ 11:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The reason is the three-sentence closing, with two of those sentences featuring "rough consensus":

A rough consensus has emerged to implement Option 1, which is to insert the 10-ish links described in the proposal. While Option 2 had substantial support, especially among later commenters, many suggested Option 1 as an alternative in case Option 2 failed to gain enough support. While proponents of Option 3 (de-linking) widely mentioned SEAOFBLUE, a rough consensus of editors have argued that, as paraphrased from Rhododendrites' comments, this is a wiki, and that links are what make Wikipedia unique among reference sources.

The initial version of item 60: There is a consensus to include a reasonable number of links in the lead, especially for specific items such as the Iran nuclear deal and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. My version: There is a rough consensus to insert the links described in the RfC January 2023. Current version: Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023. (Rough consensus) It was a badly formulated RfC, and editors responded with opinions such as "Links are what makes Wikipedia stand out among reference works" (little-known reference works such as Britannica also use them, but meh). I think we should keep the qualifier. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Editors also responded with opinions such as 'it'll create a SEAOFBLUE', which was never at any point relevant per the actual meaning of SEAOFBLUE. If we go down the route that the RfC was bad, only 2 out of 22 editors argued that point, so the RfC as a whole was found to be sound by most editors who participated. The fact that the close talks about rough consensus doesn't make it a necessary addition. Cessaune [talk] 13:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I rewrote the Response to claims of bias page:

User:Cessaune/Trump/Response to claims of bias

What do y'all think? Cessaune [talk] 20:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Significant improvement. DFlhb ( talk) 20:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Very good. May still be improved, no doubt, but I would be fine with immediate implementation. Thanks for this effort. On a related note, I learned from Officer Mandruss this afternoon that I have violated penal code 13.0 archiving a dead thread. I'm a bit confused by this. We often summarily revert or archive unconstructive "suggestions" and complaints to avoid rubbernecking and soapboxing. Something seems wrong with this rule. SPECIFICO talk 21:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

It's cool, with me. GoodDay ( talk) 21:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it. Cessaune [talk] 22:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Two hours and four minutes and — presto — consensus? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome to oppose the change if you like. Cessaune [talk] 17:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

(summoned by Chief Magistrate Mandruss) I like the new version. Of course, the biggest problem will be to get the people posting to read the response blurb. Most of the time, it seems the people posting that we are biased are one-time posters (IPs or SPAs) and are uninterested in what we have to say in defence. While I like the suggestions to point the person to appropriate avenues for them to raise their comments further (and think they are an improvement), I think it's more of a futile effort, as they rarely engage beyond the first initial post anyway. However, if we manage to send just a couple people there who will read it and act on its suggestions, we have done our job. :) Mgasparin ( talk) 05:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Previous added major information to the article with multiple sources, which @ Space4Time3Continuum2x: removed and gave some commentary on.

As this is a Wikipedia article covering the topic of Donald Trump, and Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED, all of the information is clearly critical and notable. Donald Trump article is not just a biography, but is also an encyclopedic article about a figure in world history. Further all the content relates biographically to Donald Trump and is cited to reliable sources (RS).

The following two passages were removed together.

In the Real Estate Manhattan developments section

By 2012, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China was Trump Tower's largest office tenant. ^[1]

Note: Cited to reliable sources and more can be found. The largest tenant of Trump Tower, during any length of time, in a historical article, is major information about Donald Trump. That's why we have the whole section about his business career and not just the presidency.

In the Conflicts of Interest section

According to Forbes staff, by October 2020, Trump had received approximately $5.4 million from the China state-owned bank ICBC through its $1.9 million annual rent in Trump Tower. ^[2] Trump also maintained a Chinese bank account until 2018 which became a 2020 campaign issue. ^{[3] [4]} It was revealed that in 2016 and 2017, he paid more taxes to China ($188,561) than to the United States ($750). ^[3]

Note: This is very critical to the encyclopedic concept of conflicts of interest certainly the biggest 'individual' detail for a section with that heading, and articles are sourced from late 2020. If the year was 2100 and this was a history article and Donald Trump was no longer a political subject, this would be amazingly crucial content to read about.

For both of the above, some context was given during removal, but doesn't seem like an actual removal reason except a suggestion of "moot". The edit summary was: Mention and cites at Trump_Tower#Commercial_tenants. The bank has been a tenant at Trump Tower (not Trump Building) since 2008 and downsized its space in 2019. Conflict of interest/emoluments: moot after Trump’s term had ended, per SC decision.

Counterargument: downsizing the space in 2019 doesn't reduce the historical relevance, this detail was true and reported on for over a decade into 2020 and 2022 which makes it easily relevant for the encyclopedia. Same for conflicts of interest. The widespread coverage makes it notable to include and even if it is just an event in time, it's critical and should easily pass the WP:10YEARTEST, like the other chronology in the article. The RS's cited are a fraction of the widespread coverage of both passages but are enough to justify inclusion.

This third passage was also removed.

The section about Truth Social currently has an incomplete version of events that is not updated to 2023.

A previous version, which was updated to 2023 using reliable sources, was removed. It looked like this:

Trump registered a new company in February 2021. Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG) was formed for providing "social networking services" to "customers in the United States". ^{[5] [6]} In October 2021, Trump announced the planned merger of TMTG with Digital World Acquisition, ^[7] a special-purpose acquisition company (SPAC). A main backer of the SPAC is China-based financier ARC Group, who was reportedly involved in setting up the proposed merger. The transaction is under investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. ^{[8] [9]} Shanghai-based ARC also offered $2 million to get Digital World Acquisition off the ground. ^[10] The CEO of Digital World Acquisition, hired from Wuhan-based operation Yunhong Holdings, ^{[11] [10] [12] [13]} broke ties with China in December 2021. ^[14]

The removal edit summary was: Moved newly added content to the umbrella brand, Trump Organization. Too much detail in Chinese company & personnel for top bio.

First of all, 80% of this passage is already in the article. Let's say we're worried about that section looking like minutiae about registration; the additional info that RS's like Reuters and The Guardian discovered in 2023, actually clarifies why it is notable and is notable in itself.

I would consider the removal reasoning weak, because events this massive and international are relevant to readers seeking information about Donald Trump and Wiki is WP:GLOBAL as well as not WP:CENSORED. Given wide RS coverage, this is arguably the most notable information about Truth Social besides its other controversies and funding concerns. It also connects directly back to Trump and in its widespread coverage is fit for "top bio".

In summary, the above passages are major content to include on the Donald Trump article and both biographically important cited to reliable sources and also encyclopedically important in world history.

Thanks for reading. Feel free to comment below -- Rauisuchian ( talk) 20:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Trump Tower tenant ICBC

The Chinese bank rented the offices in 2008, and they were only the third-largest tenant after Gucci and the Trump Organization. In 2008, Trump was a reality TV celebrity, and I doubt the bank had a clairvoyant on its payroll who predicted Trump's 2015 presidential announcement. Emoluments: why did the bank downsize its Trump Tower office in 2019 when he was in office and the tower had plenty of vacant space? Conflicts of interest: tenants tend to pay rent, unless your Clarence Thomas's mother and Harlan Crow is your landlord. The Forbes article doesn't say whether the rent was high, low, or average for a NY 5th Ave. location. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

TMTG

Clarifying: you're proposing to add Shanghai-based ARC also offered $2 million to get Digital World Acquisition off the ground.[10] The CEO of Digital World Acquisition, hired from Wuhan-based operation Yunhong Holdings,[11][10][12][13] broke ties with China in December 2021.[14] Too much detail for this top bio. The first four sentences of the paragraph are in the article. You mention additional info that RS's like Reuters and The Guardian discovered in 2023. What are you talking about? The Reuters article you cite is dated February 10, 2022, and your sources don't include a Guardian article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I found the Guardian article, at Truth_Social#Russian_finance, which is where the mention belongs, for now. "According to [Guardian] sources familiar with the matter", NY prosecutors are investigating Trump Media for money laundering. The article mentions then-Trump Media CFO Philip Juhan, Trump Jr., and a few others, no mention of Trump. Until we know whether anything comes of this WP:NOTNEWS applies. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your attention to detail in discussing this. I'll revisit in a bit -- Rauisuchian ( talk) 20:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Given there's a whole article (based on almost 70 reliable sources) and category, it looks like the majority of editors involved don't consider this redundant, that there is precedent for mentioning this, and that this forms a significant part of Trump's notability and impact on politics and public discourse (including before, during, and after his presidency), therefore meeting WP:SUSTAINED.

To name but two, his involvement as the figurehead of the birther movement is often described as the harbinger of his presidency and now going into the next election reports indicate roughly 70% of Republicans believe Trump's big lie. GhulamIslam ( talk) 14:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

No. -- Jayron 32 14:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, are you proposing changing, "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, and conspiracy theorist who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021."?

If that is your proposal, I would oppose it as I do not think that conveys enough context and nuance. ~ ONUnicorn^{( Talk| Contribs)} problem solving 14:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, and how you've linked to the article is preferable and directs to the context, but more than that there's a section devoted to it.
It isn't being used as a negative attack term by the way, he's undoubtedly the most prominent conspiracy theorist in the world. If such a term is appropriately substantiated by extensive reliable sources, it may be included in the lead paragraph to describe Donald Trump without running afoul of WP:BLP. It's a description widely used by unbiased reliable sources both academic and journalistic.
Trump is beyond a WP:PUBLICFIGURE so there is a huge exception to the usual care taken to be careful to avoid negative info in BLPs. "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." GhulamIslam ( talk) 16:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it would need to be mentioned in the lede sentence when it's already mentioned in the lede section. –– FormalDude (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The third paragraph of the lead ( not lede) says that "Trump promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics." We have many RS describing the theories he promoted but are the majority of them saying he's a conspiracy theorist? Recent RS: PBS—embracing and amplifying false fringe QAnon conspiracy theory, museJHU—conspiracy theory after Trump, CNN—has been a conspiracy theorist for years, FactCheck.org—espousing or leaning into conspiracy theories, VOA—moving closer to QAnon conspiracy, TIME—weaponized conspiracy theories, Atlantic—Trump needs conspiracy theories for political and personal ends, AP—Donald Trump is overtly embracing QAnon. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@ Space4Time3Continuum2x: Could these sources be added together with a reference like ref. 4 on the Marjorie Taylor Green article? GhulamIslam ( talk) 18:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

We don’t call Trump a conspiracy theorist in the body because RS don’t call him that, so we can’t call him that in the lead. ( List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump doesn’t call Trump a conspiracy theorist, either, and I don’t know that the one-sentence lead of that article is correct about Trump having created any of the conspiracy theories the article lists.) RS say that pushing conspiracy theories is one of Trump’s patterns of behavior. He uses them as long as he thinks they’re useful, and moves on to the next one when they appear to have outlived their usefulness. Promoting—check, amplifying—check, but only one RS, CNN fact checker Daniel Dale, calls Trump a conspiracy theorist. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, he is an executive. So, like most of that cohort, he doesn't really do anything. He causes actions to be effected by his staff and entourage. But sources attribute at least Stop the Steal directly to him. As to what's a conspiracy theory and what's a passing falsehood, the line is not always clear. Sometimes the incidental falsehoods come back as a recognizable refrain. In general, I think labels are too easily misunderstood and not encyclopedic. But I would agree with OP that some indication of the conspiracy theory content needs to be prominent up top. That's why I think we should consider ways to put it in a second lead sentence of the first paragraph or to elevate that and some related content to an extension of the first paragraph or swap of #4 above 2 and 3. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Please provide sourcing to indicate that this is currently the dominant mainstream description of him. Without that, it cannot be stated up top in his bio. We editors cannot make an inference from a collation of conspiracy theories he has promulgated or endorsed. SPECIFICO talk 16:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

However, we should consider swapping the third and second lead paragraph positions to put the more current significant part first. SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I imagine the former, similarly to Marjorie Taylor Greene and Mike Lindell's lead paragraphs, except "conspiracy theorist" would link to List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump. GhulamIslam ( talk) 17:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The second paragraph covers education and private business endeavors prior to the presidency. The third and fourth paragraphs are about Trump's election and presidency. I don't think it would be an improvement to move the second paragraph in between those two. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

This is already dealt with well enough in the third paragraph. ser! ^{( chat to me - see my edits)} 17:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

But it should, IMO, be in the second paragraph. The life details are not significant relative to his official acts and the influence and visability of his current roles far exceeds his business and American silly-media presence. SPECIFICO talk 17:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm just opposed to the addition to the lede in the way the proposer suggests. ser! ^{( chat to me - see my edits)} 17:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@ GhulamIslam: What do you think of swapping the positions of the second and third paragraphs? SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The first paragraph doesn't seem as immediately important but swapping them confuses the chronology, I'd either leave it as it is or not include it in the lead. GhulamIslam ( talk) 18:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd disagree that the "pre-politics" details aren't significant. It led to the whole emoluments thing, which was pretty huge for a brief period (and which we mention in the body) and he was already notable decades ago for the 2nd paragraph stuff in contemporary sources. It also wouldn't make sense, since it would break the chronology — DFlhb ( talk) 18:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think sources treat his TV show or his business failures as being more significant than his presidency or ongoing role as a political leader. I also don't see a rationale for following chronology when we'll still have it high up in the lead position 3 and his prior life was so unimportant compared to his life in politics. Nor for that matter is the emoluments allegation among the most noteworthy things about his life. SPECIFICO talk 18:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Current sources, sure, but not the decades of sourcing prior to that. Recentism in BLP leads is one of my pet peeves. I think MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL backs me up on that, and current practice across almost all BLP leads. (Emoluments are certainly not among the most noteworthy things, hence why it's not mentioned in the lead) — DFlhb ( talk) 19:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

That's not how we define recentism. Chronological order is more like a middle-school writing assignment. Not following why you raised emoluments initially. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Chronological order is essential to good lead writing, and I see no benefit to going against that. If some readers lack the attention span to make it to the third paragraph, TikTok is thataway. I find our lead quite excellent, and it's the most scrutinised part of one of our most scrutinised articles; changing it would require quite an obvious consensus — DFlhb ( talk) 16:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Chronological order is essential to good lead writing That is the part I don't understand or agree with. "Essential" is an absolute standard, and I don't think it's always required. Otherwise we'd start our articles with babies in the hospital. here is a counterexample. The manger doesn't even appear in the lead. SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I am unsure this is one of the things he is most noted for. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I recommend excluding, fwiw. Keep in mind, that around this time next year, info in this BLP's body, will quite likely go through quite a few changes. GoodDay ( talk) 16:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Alternative proposals

What about just moving the first sentence of the third paragraph and making it the second sentence? "Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist." You don't need to follow it immediately with accusations of conspiracism, lying and racism since these positions already infer that. TFD ( talk) 18:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Bad idea, although Trump would probably support the move since he was and is running on all four. Populists, protectionists, isolationists, and nationalists may also be conspiracy theorists, liars, and racists or any combination thereof but that's not indicated by any of the terms. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

While I agree that those 4 views do not imply or entail "conspiracy theorist, liar, racist" I think TFD provided the germ of a good suggestion, to wit: A minimal summary in the opening short paragraph before launching into the biographical array. I think we can find a satisfactory middle ground. SPECIFICO talk 12:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd oppose putting those in the first paragraph too, since threshold to put traits in the first paragraph is much higher (they must be definitional, i.e. labels that are frequently mentioned in passing every time his name is mentioned). Trump's "populism" is, at least per some sources, more of an electoral strategy than something he actually believes in. Not to mention the constant flip flops. None of those political positions are definitional; they're opportunistic. DFlhb ( talk) 13:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

But the lies, conspiracy theories and pandering to racist views are definitional. I agree the other four are better understood as modalities to engage aggrieved voters. That's why it's important to put a concise indication of his modus operandi in the first paragraph. We have long acknowledged that RS erred for several years on the side of deference to Trump due to the stature of his office. RS have now acknowledged that error and recent narratives are very clear in emphasizing the core modalities, and -- as you say -- not defining him in terms of gross categories such as "populism" and "nationalism". SPECIFICO talk 15:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Trump is microphone, willing to amplify whatever his supporters views are & possibly what some independents' views are. That's the premise that I'm seeing, but I'll go along with whatever write up, the rest of you can work out. GoodDay ( talk) 15:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• No, conspiracy theorist should not be in the first sentence of this article. His promotion of conspiracy theories has not been identified by reliable sources as a defining characteristic of Trump in the same way as politician, businessman, and media personality. Also, no, the second and third paragraphs of the lead should not be swapped in an attempt to give Trump has promoted conspiracy theories... more prominence or weight. Doing so would put the lead out of a rough chronological order and I reject the notion that his pre-political career is not important (see the reasons by DFlhb). Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  That is an illogical comparison. It compares parameters from two different dimensions. Similarly, "businessman" is not a more defining characteristic than "human" "male" "two-legged" but we do not see those in the first sentence. So -- as you state -- conspiracy, lies, etc, is not "in the same way" as professional roles, but it describes most noteworthy characteristic of his behavior in all of those roles. Such clarification in a brief additional sentence would not violate chronological order. Forget about "populism" etc. which may indeed by empty words. The disregard for fact is described by RS as his core. For compact mentions of non-professional non-chronological content up top, there are many examples on WP, e.g. Jesse James Benito Mussolini John N. Mitchell Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Anthony Weiner Joseph McCarthy Leona Helmsley. A short additional sentence in the first paragraph will not create disorder. SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• Not in the lead sentence. The lead sentence is usually used to describe the subject's profession(s), as it now does: "politician, media personality, and businessman". Descriptions of the most noteworthy behavioral characteristics - such as believing in and spreading conspiracy theories - belong later in the lead section. Exactly as our lead section currently does in the third paragraph. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  P.S. And I don't agree with swapping the second and third paragraphs, either. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think both of those are no longer proposed. What do you think about adding one sentence to the first paragraph that incorporates the characterization that's currently farther down, after the life chronology? It would not need to use "conspiracy theories", just something to describe his approach to politics and public life? SPECIFICO talk 17:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  No, I would oppose that. And it's against MOS. See MOS:OPENPARABIO. The first paragraph of a biography is often very short, often a single sentence as it is here. Here is what the opening paragraph is supposed to cover: Name and title, dates of birth and death, context (such as nationality), "One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms," and possibly "The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)" That's the first paragraph. The remainder of the lead section - the later paragraphs - can go into biographical detail, what they have done or accomplished, and even what their most noteworthy opinions are. That is exactly what this article's lead section does and we should leave it alone. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  P.S. I wish you were right about those ideas being "no longer proposed", but in the paragraph immediately below this one, the person who originally made this proposal makes it again, as if none of the preceding discussion had happened. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  I took care to cite half a dozen counterexamples to the claims above that such content would violate the canons of the lead. There are hundreds more like those that briefly characterize the BLPerson in the opening paragraph. Particularly, it seems, when the individual's most significant features were recognized somewhat late- or mid-career. SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I propose changing the lead sentence to "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and conspiracy theorist ^[1] who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021."

According to the Collins English Dictionary, a conspiracy theorist is "someone who believes in or spreads conspiracy theories". As I've said before, if appropriately substantiated by extensive reliable sources, such a term may be included in the lead paragraph to describe Donald Trump without running afoul of WP:BLP. It's a description widely used by unbiased reliable sources both academic and journalistic. Trump is beyond a WP:PUBLICFIGURE so there is a huge exception to the usual care taken to be careful to avoid negative info in BLPs. "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." GhulamIslam ( talk) 20:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Re "It's a description widely used by unbiased reliable sources both academic and journalistic." — How do you know they are unbiased? Bob K31416 ( talk) 21:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually we don't, but they're considered reliable and they're making the same inference. GhulamIslam ( talk) 22:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

If someone provides a wide list of reliable sources—an actual wide list of reliable sources (not the 8 or so above)—then let's talk. Trump is beyond a WP:PUBLICFIGURE so there is a huge exception to the usual care taken to be careful to avoid negative info in BLPs—since he's an active, extremely prominent politician, not only in America but to a limited extent worldwide, I would err very far on the side of caution. There is no real benefit to characterizing Trump as a conspiracy theorist in my mind (we have a page devoted to the conpiracy theories he has promoted, so if people want to, they can still find the relevant info), and as I see it, the potential negatives are so much greater than any potential benefit.

If the only benefit to calling Trump a conspiracy theorist is that it is a relevant characterization, I would most definitely advocate against this. Especially since any characterization of this sort could realistically have an impact as great or greater than the Seigenthaler incident. It's not an issue I think we as Wikipedans need to drag ourselves into, and, again, relevant info about it is present on multiple pages, including this one. Cessaune [talk] 01:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

We are only discussing where to locate content that is already in the lead. That comparison is off the wall. SPECIFICO talk 01:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought OP was advocating for a change—I propose changing the lead sentence to "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and conspiracy theorist who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021." I'm confused. Cessaune [talk] 01:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Can this section be updated? All the info is now out-of-date. Prisoner of Zenda ( talk) 09:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so. Per WP:NOTNEWS "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." The criminal investigations mentioned are ongoing. The next hearing in the NY case he was indicted on isn't scheduled until December. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC) Just updated one item (Trump Org. CFO's conviction for tax fraud). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Should add E Jean Carroll's suit against him [8] Swizzard ( talk) 19:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Guilty as charged 81.77.149.7 ( talk) 19:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

No finding of "guilt" has occurred. This content needs to be worded closely follwing RS. He has been found liable for damages relating to sexual assault and defamation. There has not been finding of "rape" and there is no criminal finding. SPECIFICO talk 19:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

No as it wasn't a criminal trial. However, any of these phrases would be accurate: "Perpetrator of sexual assault and defamation" "Offender of sexual assault and defamation" "Liable for sexual misconduct and defamation" "Responsible for sexual assault and defamatory actions". Chicago god ( talk) 22:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the two above. Guilty isn't the word as a criminal finding is absent. But, clearly WP:DUE with the correct language. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 00:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

There is a strong consensus to implement option 1. Cessaune [talk] 18:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

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.

---

After a discussion with Bob K31416 (permalink), I would like to try for a consensus on what I believe is the best way to handle bias complaints at this article. There were discussions about this a couple of years ago, but no explicit consensus. I figured the benefits were obvious enough that it would just "catch on", but I was apparently mistaken.

The key elements of this method are:

• Instead of dismissively removing a bias complaint, inform the reader respectfully and give them time to read that.
• Otherwise, avoid wasting editor time repetitively fielding complaints from readers who don't understand Wikipedia policy.

The method is as follows:

• Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias.
• Close the discussion using {{ archive top}}/bot.
• Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
• Manually archive the discussion.

If we can reach a consensus on this, I will create a new item in the consensus list. If not, I will drop the issue and abandon the method. ― Mandruss  ☎ 22:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Given the unfortunate fact that editors on all pages end up in little debates, policy scolding, etc on vague complaints and unspecific edit requests, I think we need to be able to do what we do everywhere else -- which is sometimes to delete or archive such posts. SPECIFICO talk 22:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

For the sake of Wikipedia's image, a good-faith complaint deserves a respectful reply. Not all complaints are in good faith, but this one was. Ignorance is not bad faith, and Wikipedia's policies are somewhat counterintuitive. Try to imagine yourself on the outside looking in. ― Mandruss  ☎ 23:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

When the same telltale language appears over and over, it's most likely somebody who's been hanging out and repeating what they see in a chat room or something. But in the recent one, there was a kind reply and the archiving was to prevent an extended discussion. I do however see that we need to give the visitor enough time to return to read the reply to their query. SPECIFICO talk 00:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

If it'll cut down drive-by editors/ips, complaints. Then indeed, close & archive. If an editor chooses to go the RFC route? then that's (of course) a different situation. GoodDay ( talk) 22:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I lke the idea, but preemptive closing of discussions without giving the editor a chance to respond (I assume that's what's being proposed) just seems unfair. At the very least, asking the editor to reword the statement to comply with what is present on the Bias page, giving them 24 hours, then closing the discussion seems reasonable to me. Cessaune [talk] 00:06, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Nothing prevents them from starting a new and better discussion after reading the response page, and I think that should be obvious to them. In fact, the response page makes that abundantly clear beginning with Any user, including you.... But in all my years at this article I have yet to see a single one of these readers come back with the requisite suggestion for a specific, policy-based improvement. They simply don't care to dig into the policy enough to know what "policy-based" means, exactly (nor would I, probably). That suggests that your suggestion would merely add unnecessary complication to the process. ― Mandruss  ☎ 00:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, but this is irrelevant. It's not ultimately that disruptive to keep a discussion open for 24 hours, and, as SPECIFICO says above, we need to give the visitor enough time to return to read the reply to their query. To not give a user that time at all isn't fair, regardless of whether or not the editor simply [doesn't] care to dig into the policy enough to know what "policy-based" means. I went and looked through policies, when I made my first edits here, so when you say I have yet to see a single one of these readers come back with the requisite suggestion for a specific, policy-based improvement—I tried to in the past, and continue to try to now. I definitely know I wouldn't be a Wikipedia editor at all if someone had shut down my first Trump talk page contribution without even giving me a chance to reply.

Also, I made changes to the Bias page, and included a bunch of relevant policies ( WP:AGF, WP:DGF, WP:CIVILITY, WP:RSP). We can be more specific and encouraging to motivate these newcomers to actually create those specific, policy-based improvements that we speak of, which was the whole point of my edits, and should be the whole point of the bias page. Our words should also reflect that when pointing the editor towards the bias page. Cessaune [talk] 00:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not ultimately that disruptive to keep a discussion open for 24 hours Not so much disruptive as a waste of time. Basically we're spending our time educating readers about Wikipedia policy, when the policy is already written down for them to read if they're interested (and they aren't, as I said). We're here to work on this article, not to educate readers who have no interest in being educated. Our responsibility ends after we point them to the policy pages.

as SPECIFICO says above, we need to give the visitor enough time to return to read the reply to their query. Exactly right, and this method gives them 24 hours to read the reply. If that wasn't considered enough time, consensus 13 wouldn't read as it does.

Your proposed changes to the response page are a separate and independent issue. ― Mandruss  ☎ 00:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Basically we're spending our time educating readers about Wikipedia policy, when the policy is already written down for them to read if they're interested—I'm only suggesting two sentences or so. It wouldn't be that big of a deal. Cessaune [talk] 01:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Here are three sentences, pursuant to step 1 of the proposed method. The rest is on the response page and would be redundant (and incomplete) within the thread. ― Mandruss  ☎ 01:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's how I would do it:

• Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias, making sure that they are aware that no response within 24 hours will lead to closure of the topic.
• Wait at least 24 hours.
• Close the discussion.
• Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
• Manually archive the discussion.

In an ideal world, I would like it if we articulated that they are not only welcome to try again, but that we encourage them to try again. My issue with an immediate close is that, for someone who isn't familiar with Wikipedia policy, closing a thread they started before even giving them a chance to reply fully hinders their want to restate anything. Closing someone's thread immediately also may have more negative consequences: people may start a new thread, claiming that we are censoring/silencing their opinions. There is little downside to simply waiting 24 hours, and, if needed, we can add a clause so that if the conversation starts heading south, it can be closed before the 24-hour period. Cessaune [talk] 02:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I would like it if we articulated that they are not only welcome to try again, but that we encourage them to try again. By all means, feel free to change "welcome to" to "encouraged to" on the response page. The whole point is that anything that needs to be said can be said on that page, and the thread itself should be kept to little more than is required to point them to it. In the example above, I added just a little extra just because that's how I roll. It wouldn't be a requirement under my method. Otherwise, I still think your extra steps add unnecessary complication, but that consensus would be better than none. ― Mandruss  ☎ 03:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair. Cessaune [talk] 03:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

A 24-hr waiting period, also suffices. GoodDay ( talk) 01:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I think consensus item 13 is a good policy, and I've been adhering to it, although on occasion my responses may have been less diplomatic than they could have been. The 24-hour waiting period before archiving the closed discussion probably is a sufficient amount of time for the complainant to see the response to their complaint since in all likelyhood they'll be watching the page for it. It may be a good idea, though, to leave it on the talk page for a longer period (a week?), for other potential complainants to see and be deterred. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I've never seen any indication that other potential complainants read existing discussions before complaining. Your suggestion would result in three different retention periods: (A week?) for bias complaints, 24 hours for other closed discussions per #13, and 14 days for everything else (automated archival). Again, can we avoid over-complicating things? ― Mandruss  ☎ 18:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

In consensus item 13, the discussion [9] that the 24 hour time was based on, was closed with the following statement. "Consensus to keep bot archive at 7 days and allow manual archiving of formally closed threads after 24 hours." The term "formally closed" means that there was a request made at Wikipedia:Closure requests. The statement of consensus item 13 improperly generalized "formally closed" to "closed" without consensus. With that in mind, the 24 hour rule for archiving in the case considered here would be new. So what is the argument for archiving after only 24 hours a summarily closed discussion, not a formally closed discussion, consisting of only two messages? Bob K31416 ( talk) 13:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

First, I don't see any indication that the closer used your interpretation of "formally closed" — even if you could point to a guideline that supports your interpretation. More likely, he was simply contrasting the use of {{ archive top}}/bot to {{ collapse top}}/bot, the latter being more common at that time than it is these days at this article. Collapse is not closure, but it was being used that way a lot.

The argument for 24 hours is that it's ample time for the OP to read the reply, if the OP is interested in reading it. (It's 24 hours after the close, not 24 hours after the opening comment, just to be clear.) It's a concession being asked of the editors who would prefer to shoot on sight, without acknowledgement or reply, as we saw the other day. Maybe you could meet them halfway.

It is not unimportant that item 13 has gone unchanged since Nov 2019 without a challenge. ― Mandruss  ☎ 20:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we can mostly agree, that it can be a tricky situation to handle. We must take caution, not to be seen as 'anti-Trump', when shutting down discussions. GoodDay ( talk) 00:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I generally agree with the sentiment, but I think we should avoid the phrase "shutting down discussions". We're not shutting down discussions, which is anathema at Wikipedia, but rather nipping them in the bud before they get started. We're shutting down pointless threads. ― Mandruss  ☎ 00:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

When Wikipedia speaks of "freedom of discussion", I do not believe we have uninformed readers in mind. Discussion is part of Wikipedia editing, and Wikipedia editing is best left to Wikipedia editors, who have invested considerable time and energy in learning policy and common practice. It takes years to grasp a lot of this stuff, and non-editing readers have nothing useful to say regarding this article's neutrality. That's true whether they love Trump or despise him, and we do see complaints that the article is not tough enough on him. Trump haters want us to use the words "lies" or "liar", and that's prohibited by consensus 22, for example.

It's not unlike using representative government, instead of deciding every issue by popular referendum. Common citizens are not qualified to govern, and the world has known this for thousands of years. (Our governments may not be qualified to govern, either, but that's a separate issue.) The analogy ends when you recognize that we're not elected representatives, but it's a useful one as far it goes. Per policy, unlike our governments, we're not supposed to represent the public. We have no constituents except reliable sources. ― Mandruss  ☎ 02:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Everyone is uninformed until, well, they're not. Freedom of discussion applies to anyone, not just Wikipedia editors, otherwise there would be no Wikipedia editors. To give editors no time to discuss under the pretense that discussion may be pointless and may waste editor time is antithetical to the entire point of Wikipedia. Everyone deserves at least a chance to back up their statements, editor or not. Cessaune [talk] 03:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Freedom of discussion applies to anyone, not just Wikipedia editors, otherwise there would be no Wikipedia editors. So Wikipedia editors become editors so they can engage in discussions with non-editing readers? I was not aware of that. Are they trying to educate the population about Wikipedia policies? If not, they're violating WP:NOTFORUM. And neither is good.

pretense that discussion may be pointless and may waste editor time Sorry, no. The history of this article could not possibly be clearer: It is pointless and does waste editor time. No reader bias complaint has ever resulted in a change to the article. If that's not a waste of time, I don't know what is. If an editor sees the bias complaint and it stimulates him or her to think of a "specific, policy-based" suggestion, no problem — he or she may start a new thread about it. There's no benefit to doing it in the complaint thread.

Everyone deserves at least a chance to back up their statements, editor or not. I won't argue that point, but we are not denying them that chance. We are merely asking them to do it in a new thread, this time "specific, policy-based". The time required to start a new thread will be insignificant compared to the time required to read the policy and even attempt to put together something "specific, policy-based". As I've said previously, we have yet to see a complaining reader come back with something "specific, policy-based". The history of this article could not possibly be clearer: They have nothing further to say. But if they do, they may — within policy. ― Mandruss  ☎ 04:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Something I would like to say: editors are not required to respond to anything. The fact that discussion is going on doesn't mean that you have to put your $0.02 in, and, if you do, that's a personal limitation. Timesink arguments have always struck me as dumb: Since I'm addicted to doing something, rather than avoiding that thing, no one else should be able to do it, to help me avoid doing it, because my time can be spent elsewhere. Yes, editors might, in their pursuit of one topic, forget/ignore another one, but the truth is, at least on this page, that doesn't happen often, except in the case of RfCs overshadowing smaller issues. Two, three, sometimes four separate discussions take place simultaneously on this page all the time. As long as we all generally agree to avoid WP:FORUM situations (something that essentially all editors on this page are guilty of) we should be fine on a timesink level.

My main point is that the path to becoming a good editor generally requires one to fail. A lot. We are merely asking them to do it in a new thread—my belief is that asking them to start a new thread with a new question has the effect, unintended or not, to stifle discussion completely.

Now, it is entirely fair to say that people who are unwilling to take the time to understand policy are not worth editor time. However, I enjoy giving people the benefit of the doubt. Being unwilling to reasearch policy is perhaps an unintended consequence of having so much policy to research. It is much easier to understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines by observing policy in action, especially observing discussions about the implications or actual meanings.

Basically, the system as it stands now sets up users to fail. Guiding users to intentionally vaguely defined guidelines such as MOS:LEADCITE or MOS:OVERLINK simply serves to confuse, and the broader pillar policies such as WP:NPOV or WP:NOR, despite seeming simple on a surface-level, are so complex and massive, and require such an extensive knowledge of the secondary and tertiary policies around them, that it is almost unfair IMO to say 'go read this and come back with something coherent.'

In addition, the Bias page, and consensus item 13, are essentially formalities, put up as if to pretend that we care about these users' opinions. We don't. And that's sad, at least to me.

This is why I say that Everyone deserves at least a chance to back up their statements, editor or not. In the same thread, I might add. While the closing of one thread and the opening of another might seem trivial to one who understands that the implications of doing so are next to nothing, it is not the same to a good faith user who doesn't understand it. Instantly shutting down their good faith opinions (because that's how closing is perceived when you aren't an established editor) disincentivizes new good faith and policy-based opinions.

Now, all this being said, if it's not good faith, everything above is irrelevant. Cessaune [talk] 05:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:CIR is "only" an "explanatory essay", but you see it come up regularly anyway at places like ANI. It's not some obscure thing that nobody subscribes to. If we apply it to editors, why are non-editing readers exempt? Q.E. effin D. ― Mandruss  ☎ 06:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

CIR is only applied after all other options have been exhuasted, and it applies only to repeated mistakes, not a singular one. You cannot reasonably judge the competence of anyone after a singular interaction, and for Wikipedia's purposes, you cannot reasonably judge the competence of anyone even after an arbitrarily high number of interactions, unless it's obvious they aren't acting in good faith (vandalism, sockpuppetry, personal attacks, etc.) or it's a language barrier thing. Cessaune [talk] 07:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Great, then they can demonstrate their competence by opening a new thread with something "specific, policy-based". If they want to become Wikipedia editors, they are welcome to come on board. In my opinion, the article would benefit from more people on the Trump side who know the policy and are prepared to comply with it and use it. Once on board, it will be worth more-experienced editors' time to help them along. ― Mandruss  ☎ 07:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

My point is not that users are necessarily 'competent until proven otherwise', but that competence is acquired. It's not about demonstrating competence, it's about becoming competent in and of itself. Which, again, circles back to my main point: pointing people to policies and guidelines doesn't work that well if the goal is to actually foster good conversation and to have people actually start new threads that ask specific, policy-based questions—but, as I said before, I believe the Bias page and consensus item 13 are not intended to actually foster good conversation, but to stop bad conversation under the guise of fostering good conversation, which is a tactic I despise.

Secondly, the path to becoming a Wikipedia editor is not so simple. I'm only an editor because I played so much random article Wikipedia game with friends that I began to optimize links and fix grammar mistakes at big articles to gain an unseen advantage. If they want to become Wikipedia editors, they are welcome to come on board—becoming an editor is, at least in my limited experince, a gradual process that requires failure. To become an editor by saying "hey, I want to edit, time to read up on the rules to figure out what I should and shouldn't do"—that almost delves into a Citizendium or Nupedia-type formality, one that Wikipedia is directly against. This is why I believe it's important to actually help people instead of telling people to do stuff, and then claiming that we tried to help but they were unwilling to listen, when, in reality, we didn't really try to help at all. Cessaune [talk] 07:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

You should sign up as a mentor for Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user or contribute at WP:TEAHOUSE. Those are places where editors have signed up to spend significant amounts of their time and energy helping uninformed people along. I didn't sign up for that, I find your arguments unconvincing, and you can't dictate that I must do that. There's a time and place for almost everything. I understand that a lot of people are averse to organization. ― Mandruss  ☎ 08:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand that a lot of people are averse to organization—can you clarify the meaning of this? Thanks. Cessaune [talk] 08:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, to many, organization is synonymous with bureaucracy. To say, "If you need this kind of help, go here" seems to them like imposing an undue burden. To them, any limits on what can be said in any particular venue, per its purpose and mission, are contrary to some sacred, lofty Wikipedia principle. To them, such limits hinder the free exchange of ideas, and the encyclopedia suffers as a result. Open range is good and barbed wire fences are evil. My brain doesn't work that way.

The purpose and mission of an article talk page are to work on the article. "Helping" others with policy is limited to what's necessary to protect that article. ― Mandruss  ☎ 08:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. I'd advocate for a more active role, but I guess we've just gotta agree to disagree. Cessaune [talk] 15:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

easier and obvious solution is if there is only one disruptive user who keeps reverting obvious closes, then remove them from the topic area. ValarianB ( talk) 12:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

We have a consensus list for a reason, so you and SPECIFICO don't get to arbitrarily decide when to archive, and OneClickArchiving without abiding by the 24 hour closure period isn't allowed at all. Of course, Bob probably should've brought the issues to the talk page, but, per consensus, he was in the right. Cessaune [talk] 13:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

No, Bob was not in the right, and his reversions are almost exclusively focused on Specifico. to the point where if it was me, I would be filing harassment and wiki-hounding charges. if SPAs and IPs come to this talk page with blatantly loaded and inflammatory "this is biased, remove it now!" posts, I will freely and cheerfully remove them, invoking WP:IAR if necessary. ValarianB ( talk) 16:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Bob is only in the right per consensus item 13, unless there is something I am missing about Bob's reverts. Please point my mistakes out if needed.

I agree that Bob's edits undermine SPECIFICO and your good faith edits. However, my point above still stands. The consensus says we have to do something, so we do it, and if Bob is abiding by consensus, then a topic ban is entirely unwarranted. Also, SPECIFICO is basically the only person who archives in such a way. To claim that [Bob's] reversions are almost exclusively focused on Specifico is a true statement, but a statement that misses the bigger picture. Cessaune [talk] 16:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I doubt the bit about only me is true. Anyway, it's beside the point. Bob's entire record speaks for itself. SPECIFICO talk 16:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Not necessarily only you, but mostly you. Cessaune [talk] 17:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

IAR is often code for "fuck consensus". It is not some kind of trump card that immunizes an edit from challenge. Thankfully, an edit against consensus will be reverted, and a re-revert will be actionable disruption. I don't use IAR, never saw a need for it. ― Mandruss  ☎ 21:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The monkey under the bed

The real problem (the monkey hiding under the bed, the lizard in the closet, etc.) is WP editors who pile on and use such inquiries -- good faith or not, well-formulated or not, specific or vague -- as an opportunity for a late-night college dorm debate. Once a reply has been given, WP editors need to step back and not continue to reply to OP, at least until OP has responded with some new addition. So I suggest, when we respond the first responder should use the green checkmark to show the issue has been addressed. And everyone else needs to start a new thread if they are inspired to share their thoughts. SPECIFICO talk 12:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Basically, avoid WP:FORUM situations. GoodDay ( talk) 14:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Given how often I have had to deal with "Ahh no one has replied in 1 hour to my latest post, I have consensus" scenarios I am not sure that will achieve the aim of stopping forum debate. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Yup, it's the old 'last word' approach. An editor will keep arguing their point, with the hope that those who oppose them, will eventually stop answering them. Then, the editor takes the silent treatment as a sign of consensus. GoodDay ( talk) 21:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

What about anti-Trumpers?

What about unspecific bias complaints from anti-Trumpers? These complaints are less common than the other kind, but they do occur and should not be given greater consideration merely because they are anti-Trump. To prevent them from being given greater consideration, they need to be covered by any consensus arising from this discussion.

Almost all of the response page applies equally whether they are pro- or anti-Trump. The last sentence of the second paragraph does not: Since reliable sources are widely critical of Trump, this article must reflect that.

Should there be a separate response page for the anti-Trumpers, or will the existing one suffice — possibly with a slightly different reply in the thread? Or, should the existing response page be modified so that it works equally well for both camps? ― Mandruss  ☎ 23:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I just changed "must reflect" to "reflects". Other than that, I think "biased towards/against" in the FAQ and the response page suffice. I don't remember any unspecific complaints that the page is too positive towards Trump (then again, maybe I'm blind on that eye), just specific requests wanting his latest outrageous toots, running tallies of the lawsuits, etc. mentioned. Can you point out one or two? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I recall the odd comment in regards to we need to be more negative about him, they also get short shift. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Can I close this and revert to status quo? Cessaune [talk] 01:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Good faith vs bad faith complaints

Withdrawn for now, after some back-and-forth in the Survey section. ― Mandruss  ☎ 13:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

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.

---

Examples of what I would call bad faith complaints that don't deserve a reply (actually snippets therefrom):

• "You guys are a pack of lying morons" (Not so. Only some of us are lying morons. The rest are lying geniuses and honest morons.)
• "This page is an embarrassment and everybody knows it" (Please become a Wikipedia editor, we need someone with your ability to read the minds of billions of people you have never met.)
• "I donated to Wikipedia and I never will again" (Please reconsider. We'll all change our ways if you'll donate again. No fair donating $1.)

Unfortunately, there is no practical way to codify this in a consensus item. This means there would forever be disagreements about whether a given complaint is in good faith or bad faith. To a very significant degree, this would defeat the goals of the consensus to eliminate disruption and save editor time. I'm thinking it would be preferable to give undeserved replies, handling good-faith and bad-faith complaints the same way. This would be the lesser of two evils. I understand the aversion to giving such people anything but the online equivalent of a good punch in the gut, but that aversion is emotion-based and we should try to emulate Mister Spock. If they leave with the impression that they have our respect, so what? No skin off my back. ― Mandruss  ☎ 09:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Survey: Handling bias complaints

The discussion has been open for 25 days and has been quiet for 15 days (22 days if you count only the first two subsections). The time for new ideas and back-and-forth debate is past, and I'm calling for a !vote. I recommend and request that you read the discussion before !voting here; it is not overly long, and I believe it has a relatively high signal-to-noise ratio.

The discussion yielded three alternative methods, with none of them receiving significantly more support than the others. If you prefer some other solution or approach, you have missed your opportunity to argue for it. Please participate in discussions of topics you care about.

If you can't support any of the options 1 through 3, please !vote 0.

0 — No change to the status quo; no new item in the consensus list. Absence of a consensus, with the resulting continued disruption, is preferable to any of the following options.

1 — Mandruss.

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

2 — Space4Time3Continuum2x — Same as 1, but with a longer wait period.

1. Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias.
2. Close the thread using {{ archive top}} and {{ archive bottom}}, referring to this consensus item.
3. Wait more than 24 hours (a week?).
4. Manually archive the thread. Withdrawing the suggestion, don't want to complicate things. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

3 — Cessaune — Two wait periods.

1. Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias, making sure that they are aware that no response within 24 hours will lead to closure of the topic.
2. Wait at least 24 hours.
3. Close the thread using {{ archive top}} and {{ archive bottom}}, referring to this consensus item.
4. Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
5. Manually archive the thread.

― Mandruss  ☎ 14:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

---

• 1 per discussion. Best balance between professionalism and productive use of editor time. Strong oppose to 0. ― Mandruss  ☎ 15:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
• 1 As it will save a lot of time, and most of these never really go anywhere anyway. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
• 1. 99% of the time, such complaints aren't backed by RS or an understanding of policy and will go nowhere anyway, so cut to the chase and end it. They can start another thread if they want. If they have learned something from reading the "Response to claims....", maybe their next attempt will be worth dealing with more thoroughly that how we usually deal with trolls. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 15:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
• 1, per Mandruss, Slatersteven, and Valjean. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• Procedural objection or, alternatively, 3: First, I'm a bit dubious of the set up of this survey. If you prefer some other solution or approach, you have missed your opportunity to argue for it.? Says who? Or, perhaps more accurately, says what policy? I understand the desire to streamline discussions, but as far as I'm concerned that kind of forced restriction might invalidate any consensus that's reached here. It appears to me that no consensus that emerged above, so now the solution is, evidently, to restrict the options, but, having reviewed that prior discussion, even the possibility of restriction wasn't discussed in advance. (And keep in mind that, though RFC's are generally preceded by RFCBEFOREs, there's no policy that says a user can't respond to an RFC with an alternative suggestion.)
  Second, I assume this approach would only apply to generic claims of bias. But, with the instant-close approach, what's the review process? If the OP disagrees with the closing editor, would the OP be allowed to revert the close and explain why? If so, would the same editor that first closed the discussion be allowed to claim, "Well my opinion counts for more than yours" and re-close the discussion? (A Wikipedia:Equality issue?) Or would a third-party editor have to agree? And, of course, if the OP isn't allowed to revert ... don't you still have the issue of the closing editor being allowed to claim "my opinion matters more" by concluding the OP's complaint is meritless and too generic, and not even allowing the OP to respond? Perhaps, as an alternative to reverting, the OP would be expected to modify a closed section ... or maybe visit the user talk pages of other editors and ask them to revert the closing editor? As I see it, there are way too many unanswered questions here.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 15:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  I call overthink. We're not talking about the typical discussion among Wikipedia editors who have a clue about policy, so the normal rules and principles don't apply. As stated in the discussion, the OP or any editor is free to start a separate thread with anything "specific, policy-based". This is certainly within local discretion; we don't need a policy. ― Mandruss  ☎ 15:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  So if the OP editor disagrees that his or her claim of bias was too generic or not policy supported ... the process for review is to start a new thread, which might also be instantaneously closed by the same editor who instantaneously closed the prior thread?-- Jerome Frank Disciple 16:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe you are too new at this article to know what these complaints always look like. They are invariably general and unspecific, just like this one was. If the OP did come back with a reasonable attempt at something "specific, policy based", which has never happened, that would not be closed under this consensus. Any new consensus item will make this adequately clear. ― Mandruss  ☎ 16:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'll let other editors chip in—but my concern is that you're making a rule for easy cases but ignoring the effect of that rule on edge cases. I think @ Cessaune:'s approach makes more room for the edge cases while only trivially slowing down the process.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 16:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  When we see our first edge case, your argument will begin to have some merit. At this point, you are countering empirical evidence with hypotheticals. ― Mandruss  ☎ 16:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  I noticed that the discussion on @ Bob K31416:'s talk page chiefly concerned whether Bob was right to revert a close of talk section started by another user. Do any of these proposals actually speak to that question? (As I see it, no.)-- Jerome Frank Disciple Jerome Frank Disciple 15:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• 1, with a proviso - When an IP with no edit history posts something akin to: "Wikipedia is all libtards trying to push the deep state agenda", the post should be immediately removed. We shouldn't be cluttering the archives with such. There are numerous edits which are unarguably bad faith. If an editor wishes to waste time, they can undelete. (Although, I would consider that bad faith.) O3000, Ret. ( talk) 11:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  @ Objective3000: That was the plan; now I'm not so sure. Please see #Good faith vs bad faith complaints. ― Mandruss  ☎ 11:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, saw that. The blindingly obvious bad faith posts are very common. And the posters rarely have any intention of engaging further. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 11:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  I was more concerned about cases closer to the edge, but I guess we can wait and see whether my concern is overblown. I do know that there are always two or three editors around for whom "pro-Trump" and "blindingly obvious bad faith" are one and the same, particularly when it comes to drop-in readers. ― Mandruss  ☎ 11:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  Understood. If an IP posts: "Why is this article all negative?"; they should be pointed to a consensus. I don't consider that trolling. There is a difference between someone not understanding NPOV and an outright troll; and it seems to me that this is usually obvious. There are articles like InfoWars where these posts are common. But, their talk pages are nowhere near as busy and complex as this. This TP, which has been lately, annoyingly, growing in length, requires more cleanup work. And this will get worse as the election grows nearer and Trump's legal entanglements escalate. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 12:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  I subscribe to a strict definition of "troll", which is someone who posts for the sole purpose of eliciting a negative reaction or starting trouble. They don't actually mean what they say. I believe the vast majority of these bad-faith posters do mean what they say, that the article is biased against Trump and the Wikipedia's system is corrupt just like everything else that says anything negative about their messiah. They fight the perceived corruption the only way they know how, by throwing firebombs at it. At least that's what it feels like to them; in reality they are throwing lit matches that go out before they can do any damage.

  I was never comfortable with what I saw as WP's overuse of the word troll, but I understood that a lot of the internet does the same thing. The word has become something of a general-purpose insult for a new arrival you don't like, which has almost eliminated its communication value. ― Mandruss  ☎ 13:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  Good point. Here's an example post from minutes ago on the DeSantis TP that doesn't tightly fit the definition of troll; but that I think clearly required (and received) immediate deletion. [10] It adds no value to discussion and the poster isn't looking for any. Of course it fits NOTAFORUM. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 13:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  So far the presumption is that anyone who thinks that this article is biased against Trump is either pro-Trump or doesn't understand NPOV, or both. It hasn't been considered that an editor who is none of these thinks the article is biased. It also hasn't been considered that determined and active editors that want to promote an anti-Trump agenda or express their anti-Trump feelings, have gained control of this article through force of numbers and persistence, and are responsible for making it biased against Trump, beyond any anti-Trump bias that may be in the sources. Bob K31416 ( talk) 13:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  Now yours is a good example of an unhelpful post that can't be deleted. I specifically said that such posts should not be deleted but pointed to consensus. That doesn't stop them from continuing -- which the rarely will. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 13:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  While it is likely true that the majority of editors on this page are, in some sense, anti-Trump, I don't think your first statement is necessarily always true. I'm not anti-Trump or pro-Trump, I have a decently good understanding of NPOV, and I think the article is negatively biased. Secondly, everyone has POV, but speculation, especially negative speculation, is uncalled for. Ultimately, it doesn't matter, as long as an editor's POV doesn't get in the way of NPOV, DUE, FRINGE and the like. Cessaune [talk] 13:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  Any chance we could stay closer to the discussion topic? When Editor X strays off topic, there is no need for Editor Y to respond, even if they find Editor X's comment interesting, in need of correction, or whatever. Keep following tangent upon tangent just because we find the conversation stimulating, and we'll be discussing marsupial fertility by the end of June. I was hoping to wrap this up long before then.

  This is NOT a discussion about whether this article is biased, or other things tangentially related to article bias. If you want to discuss those things, you can do it separately. ― Mandruss  ☎ 14:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• 1 - IMO the plainly-trolling posts can be reverted on sight per the larger project policies of, say, Wikipedia:Civility, we do not or at least should not need to codify it here. IF an editor is disruptive enough to re-open such a post, then that can be escalated rather than litigated here, as we usually do. Zaathras ( talk) 14:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  Good point. Local consensus doesn't override policies like that and WP:NOT. Might be good to state that, as obvious as it may be, to avoid future argument. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 14:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Closed after linking to the Bias page, per current consensus #61. Cessaune [talk] 22:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

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 edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Just want to edit the wording on the article. Is very biased and against Donald Trump, I want to make it with absolute facts as there are some lines which have no evidence or articles to back up such as where the article states he was racist and homophobic. Along with that it says "Trump claimed the election is rigged but is false." Again biased, as there is indeed evidence of deceased people somehow voting in the election. I don't want to make it "Pro-trump" by any means, just neutral since the article is clearly biased against Trump. Ruckers7 ( talk) 22:29, 24 May 2023 (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. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 22:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

If you believe that this article is biased, you should read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. Basically, reliable sources are widely critical of Trump, so the article reflects that. If you have a specific change, one that is backed up by reliable sources, feel free to start a new section. Cessaune [talk] 22:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Hello! I'm not sure precisely where to place the content, but it seems to me that, though cited to different articles, this page repeats Forbes's estimates of Trump's wealth in the wealth section. Now, arguably, the first comment is more of a mini-lead, especially because the second mention gets more detail, but given how short the section is, overall, I think it might be worth it to only include the estimates once. First reference:

Records released by the FEC showed at least $1.4 billion in assets and $265 million in liabilities. Forbes estimated his net worth at $4.5 billion in 2015 and $3.1 billion in 2018.

The latter is cited to this Business Insider article.

Forbes estimated in October 2018 that his net worth declined from $4.5 billion in 2015 to $3.1 billion in 2017 and his product licensing income from $23 million to $3 million.

This sentence is cited to this Forbes article.

Just in case it concerns someone else: The identity of the dollar figures but variance in years here concerned me, though, upon further investigation ... I think it's okay? The second source (the Forbes article) was written in October 2018 and says:

His net worth, by our calculation, has dropped from $4.5 billion in 2015 to $3.1 billion the last two years, ....

I think the product-licensing info should be included, but I was wondering if anyone had thoughts about only including these numbers once. If we are using the first paragraph as a preview of the biggest points, we could perhaps phrase it differently? I.e. "Forbes estimated his net worth dropped by $1.4 billion between 2015 and 2018."?-- Jerome Frank Disciple 18:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello! At this point, I'm fairly used to @ SPECIFICO: reverting me with a generic edit summary and then not following up when I post here, but I'd like more input on this revert, where, amongst other moves, SPECIFICO added back an uncited claim.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 15:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I also cannot find any evidence in sources for that claim (folded into investigation, not ended) either. I'm going to restore these changes as supported by sourcing, and appropriately removing unsourced material. I will say SPECIFICO's reverts are sometimes justified, as in this edit, which I agree with. But yeah, wholesale and continual reversions here are often not very helpful, especially when not followed up by appropriate discussion per WP:BRD. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 16:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that particular edit was (prior to the reversion) discussed at #Intro to 2016 presidential campaign, and Space4Time3Continuum2x also expressed disagreement with it, so I think I'm the only one who thought it was an improvement—not objecting to that revert at all!-- Jerome Frank Disciple 16:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)