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.

In my opinion, the section on Trump's policies in the lede is way too long and needs to be cut back. It's about the size of Obama's policies in the lede, except Trump has been president for two years and Obama was for eight. His travel ban isn't even that major of a policy anymore, as I stated before, and recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel did not have much of an effect on anything, it was almost completely formal (other than moving the US embassy, but Israel's political buildings are mostly in Tel Aviv). Banning transgender soldiers from the military only removed a few thousand soldiers, and although it was controversial, it still wasn't that major of a policy, since they were banned from the military already until 2016, and Obama's reversal of the Don't Act Don't Tell policy wasn't in the lede of his article. What I am saying is, whether or not you agree with these policies (I personally don't agree with some of his policies, such as the ban on transgender soldiers), I think these policies can be removed and replaced with larger ones. For example, he has placed more sanctions on Venezuela and Russia, and also proposed withdrawing soldiers from the Middle East, among many other policies. But for now, the less major ones should just be removed, since they are placed later in the article anyways. BobRoberts14 ( talk) 16:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

I think it highly unlikely any of this will happen in the near future. Trimming the article (per the thread above) is of paramount importance, and editors should focus on that for the time being. Changes to the lede are highly controversial, with almost every single word negotiated in epic, exhausting discussions lasting for days and weeks. -- Scjessey ( talk) 16:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not it would be difficult isn't the question though. What I am saying is that the lede includes some policies that are not very important compared to some others. I am saying certain policies that were put in place over two years ago and did not do as much as others should be left in other sections, and instead replaced with newer, larger policies. BobRoberts14 ( talk) 16:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

I don't think we should be looking solely at net policy impact to decide whether a policy should be included in the lead section. Some policies are important because they have political or some other historical significance, not because they had some significant boots-on-the-ground effect. I don't think that sanctions on Venezuela or Russia or troop withdrawals from the Middle East have as much much historical significance, relatively speaking, as what's currently there. Also, the Russia sanctions aren't Trump's policy, so including them would be highly misleading. R2 ( bleep) 18:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Trump did increase sanctions on Russia, that just wasn't his main policy, so I agree that it shouldn't be in the lead. I was just giving examples of other policies. His sanctions on Venezuela affected billions of dollars though, and withdrawing thousands of troops from the Middle East is most certainly major. BobRoberts14 ( talk) 18:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

Trump increased sanctions on Russia? Sources please. R2 ( bleep) 22:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/03/trump-signs-russia-sanctions-bill-moscow-calls-it-trade-war.html and also https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/new-russia-sanctions-will-likely-target-oligarchs-close-putin-n862996 BobRoberts14 ( talk) 22:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

Ha, that's a pretty gross misrepresentation. The first source you cite says Trump grudgingly signed the 2017 bill, which conflicted with his desires, because he knew that a veto would be overridden. The second source is about the April 2018 sanctions, which Trump himself resisted. We are not going to say anything about sanctions on Russia, in the lead or anywhere else, without conveying this information. R2 ( bleep) 22:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

First off, you can't say that he didn't do something because he didn't want to. Second, I already said that it is too minor to belong in the lede, so your not contributing anything by repeating that. I was just giving an example of one of his policies. BobRoberts14 ( talk) 22:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

Just because he did something (unwillingly) doesn't make it one of his policies. But you're right, this is effectively moot. R2 ( bleep) 22:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, I'm not going to take advice from someone who argues with admins and literally says "Go the fuck away for 24 hours, you stupid excuse of an admin." BobRoberts14 ( talk) 23:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

Nice one. R2 ( bleep) 23:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Has there been discussion previously of developing the "Investigations of Donald Trump" page, which currently redirects to this article? The NYT reported there were 29 open investigations as of May 2019. Would it make sense to retitle that "Investigations of President Donald Trump? Farcaster ( talk) 14:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

That looks like a notable topic in itself. Feel free to start a dedicated article, if you've got the energy. — JFG ^talk 21:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes @ Farcaster:, there was a discussion either on this page or his presidency's page, but apparently nobody has the time or energy to do so. starship .paint ( talk) 12:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The tricky thing is that it's hard to find content that would be in scope. Most of the content that editors might think of is about investigations into Trump's associates, not verifiably about Trump himself. There has been some recent discussion about this at User talk:BullRangifer/Surveillance of Trump associates. R2 ( bleep) 17:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I would think due the reality of the numerous investigations there should be an article on them..with a link in this one...it would be absurd to argue they are not relevant...the one paragraph blurb barely glosses over them and links only to timelines of the investigations rather than the investigations themselves...the belief that this is some kind of minor footnote is ridiculous...a link to a link is not good enough. 2600:1702:2340:9470:D968:91F2:DF40:9D92 ( talk) 17:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Did anyone say that it would be not relevant or that it should be some kind of minor footnote? R2 ( bleep) 17:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn`t say they did..what I said is I don`t see a summery of some kind regarding these investigations and a link to a new inclusive article regarding them..this is news and relevant...a lot people see these investigations as extremely relevant as a whole but are not going to spend hours sifting through various articles in order to get to the truth...There needs to be a separate article on Wikipedia about this with..and this is just as important...a link to it here...I support the creation of a new article. 2600:1702:2340:9470:2988:F2AB:2919:37CC ( talk) 19:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The proposed title is unclear. Do we include the word "President"? (None of the other dozens of articles about him include it in the title.) Does "of" mean investigations into DT, or investigations by DT (like the ones he has ordered William Barr to start)? Does it mean just him personally, or does it include his business? his foundation? his family? his associates? I really don't think we are ready to launch such a page until we agree on what it will cover. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

It should cover all criminal investigations against him and anything or anyone associated with him. 2600:1702:2340:9470:5035:7312:706E:A981 ( talk) 03:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Only criminal? What about ethical? What about congressional oversight? What about an impeachment inquiry if there is one? (Actually that would be covered in our existing article, Efforts to impeach Donald Trump.) -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC) Oh, and don't forget we already have an article about the Mueller investigation. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Is this part really necessary? It seems too biased to be in the article. Andrew Jackson was arguably the most racist president ever, since he forcibly removed thousands of Native American's from their homes and owned many slaves, but it does not say that he is considered racist in the lede of his article. Which comments of Trump's specifically were racist? And even if he has made some racist comments, that doesn't mean you can say "many of his comments... [were] racist." Some of his comments have been, but that it not a main characteristic of his presidency, and isn't a major part of his policies. So since that is not a common theme of his comments, I don't think it should be in the lede. I think this is especially true because the "many" part should be sourced with a list of his "racist" comments and how often he makes them. Currently there is no source cited. Bob Roberts 08:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Please read the history of discussion linked from #Current consensus item 30. Then tell us if you think further discussion would be a good use of our time. It is not constructive to keep re-raising issues indefinitely without significant new arguments. BTW, this article doesn't say Trump is considered racist. It says many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist. I see at least three differences between the two, all significant. ― Mandruss  ☎ 08:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Almost anyone would see "is racist" and "his comments were racist" as the same thing. When I read that sentence, I interpret it as saying that Trump is racist. Either way, I did read the other arguments about this (after Starship mentioned them), and they were "weak consensus" and not that recent either way. So I think this is still relevant. Bob Roberts 08:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

"Many of his comments ... have been characterized as ... racist" is not equal to "Trump is racist". starship .paint ( talk) 08:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

That's correct. Our target audience is not 6th graders. ― Mandruss  ☎ 08:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ BobRoberts14: - #Current consensus #30. There were "wars" fought over this sentence. Also, not everything needs to be sourced in the lead per MOS:LEADCITE. starship .paint ( talk) 08:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I know that everything does not need to be sourced, but that sentence is contentious and does not seem necessary. Unless you can prove that he is very racist in many of his comments and policy, I don't think it belongs. He has made some racist comments, but not "many". Bob Roberts 08:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

At the very least, remove the word "many" from the sentence, since almost anyone (including me) would agree that he has made some racist comments. But saying that he has made many needs to be cited with a source listing out numerous racist comments. Bob Roberts 08:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@ BobRoberts14: - we have a section Donald Trump#Racial views and an entire article Racial views of Donald Trump. The section and the article has sources. So we're not citing it in the lead. starship .paint ( talk) 08:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

That article does not include the claim that "many of his comments were racist". That claim is not sourced, and it is arguable. He does not make "many" racist comments, or they would more frequently be in the news. He makes some, but that is very different from "many". Bob Roberts 08:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Obviously, the concept of "many" differs among people, but the previous consensus was okay with "many". starship .paint ( talk) 08:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

If you are just trying to read the article normally, then they mean the same thing. I know they are not exactly the same, but the first one implies that he is racist by stating that "many" of his comments are. You still aren't giving me a list of "many" racist comments though. We aren't talking about the previous consensus, I'm asking for proof of "many" racist comments. "Many comments" means at least a few dozen to me, but normally more if we are talking about public comments. Bob Roberts 09:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Please read the archived discussions about this. Similar objections have been thoroughly discussed and consensus has been arrived at. - Mr X 🖋 12:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Leave it the way it is..he`s obviously a racist..take for instance his attitude towards Native Americans..not even getting into the oval office incident I`m guessing he doesn`t have any understanding of the fact Hispanics are indigenous..misunderstandings about race are one of the more obvious aspects of racism...btw they just found another body on the border..this time it`s a 7 year old child..this dynamic has been going on since 1492..same old thing..never changes. 2600:1702:2340:9470:8870:1FAE:CBFA:2C0C ( talk) 17:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, I am ignoring your comments, since yesterday you said "add the part about Trump's many marriage failures, and the sexual misconduct with the 13 year old girl." You can't just make the excuse that you "smoked a lot of weed", since your comments should never have been posted on Wikipedia in the first place. Bob Roberts 21:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• There is a difference between saying "this person is racist" and "this person has been characterized as racist". The second one is a statement of fact, he has been characterized as being a racist. It is a notable topic in relation to him and has been well covered. One line in the article, even the lead, seems more than reasonable.--v/r - T P 20:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I never said one word about his marriages. 2600:1702:2340:9470:51E5:CF7:8E89:BDDB ( talk) 23:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Quote is not in the body (update: added)

Actually, BobRoberts14 has a point. The quote "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." is not in the body of this article. It's also not in Racial views of Donald Trump. What should we do, then? starship .paint ( talk) 09:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I just think the word "many" should at least be removed and replaced with "some". I do not support Donald Trump's racist comments, since I am for African American rights, but I have not seen proof that he makes "many". I have only seen a few examples. The article mainly mentions his actions, not comments, and does not list "many" Bob Roberts 09:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

To be honest though, I think this sentence should just be removed, since he hasn't even made many policies on race anyways, and he has not made "many" racist comments. It definitely does not belong in the lede. Only a few of his policies have involved race, and some were bad for African Americans (supporting the plaintiffs in the case against Harvard's acceptance policies), while some others were beneficial for African Americans, such as the First Step Act, which mainly helped incarcerated African-Americans. Either way, neither of those are "comments", and he obviously avoids making many comments on race because it is a contentious issue. Only 45% of Americans believe that Trump is racist, according to the article Racial views of Donald Trump, so that doesn't constitute "many". Bob Roberts 09:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you are overinterpreting the word "many", and I think you are splitting hairs beyond any benefit to readers. This same encyclopedia contains the sentence, "But many in Western Europe began to refer to the political entity as the 'Greek Empire'." — and it would be absurd to demand "proof" justifying the word "many" in that sentence. What number of proven comments and actions characterized as racially charged or racist would justify the word "many" in your view?

I stand by my position that this has already been adequately discussed. ― Mandruss  ☎ 09:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

You don't make any sense comparing a topic that isn't controversial to Donald Trump. They are two completely different topics. "Many" needs to be dozens of listed comments that most people agree are racist. Bob Roberts 09:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

Mandruss - no comment on my original point? starship .paint ( talk) 09:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Starship.paint: By all means, find some supporting sources (no, we don't need "many" sources, as if that were even definable), and BOLDly add the same sentence to the body. Its existence in the lead already has consensus. ― Mandruss  ☎ 09:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Just saying that it "has consensus" doesn't apply unless people still currently support it, which is the whole point of this section. The sentence isn't sourced, and no proof of it is mentioned anywhere else in the article, or in the corresponding article on Trump's racial views. I want to look for consensus again, since this is the present and not the past. Bob Roberts 09:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Just saying that it "has consensus" doesn't mean anything unless you currently have proof. I strongly disagree with that statement, and I'm far from the only one who does. It means plenty. ― Mandruss  ☎ 09:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I am looking to see what the consensus agrees on right now. Previously, there was only "weak support", and I think this is still an issue. Just because there is consensus at some point in time does not mean that whatever people agreed on is permanent. Bob Roberts 09:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:CCC: "Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances." (emphasis added) I strongly doubt that a group including many (OOPS! Were there many, or just some??) experienced editors failed to consider the use of the word "many". We don't just overlook words here. ― Mandruss  ☎ 09:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you stop pointlessly arguing about what people said in the past, and instead state your opinions here and now? I am looking for consensus now, so saying that you think previous editors addressed this doesn't mean they did unless you show proof. Don't just say that you "strongly doubt experienced editors blah blah blah" without showing that they actually did. Bob Roberts 09:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh for Pete's sake. Now I'm not allowed to state an educated/experienced view about Wikipedia editing without providing proof. I'm pretty much done here. ― Mandruss  ☎ 09:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

You said that some people did something which they actually did not do. So yeah, if you want to make false claims, at least provide some proof. Bob Roberts 09:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

You don't necessarily have to discuss something to consider it. If nobody has any objection to a word, there is no reason to even bring it up. My point is that the participants did not fail to notice it and consider it, and I don't have to take a survey of the participants to know that. I simply know how editors think at Wikipedia, and particularly at this article. I've been a heavy participant here since before the 2016 election. ― Mandruss  ☎ 10:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I never questioned your credibility or experience, but you are wrong to say that "nobody has any objection to the word", because I am someone... Bob Roberts 10:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

In other words, "that consensus doesn't count because I wasn't a part of it". Trust me, we've been here many (or some) times before at this article. That reasoning is simply not sustainable, and it's inconsistent with WP:CCC. ― Mandruss  ☎ 10:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

No, I said that the previous consensus should be reconsidered for new reasons. I never said that past consensus doesn't matter, that would be foolish and naive. Bob Roberts 10:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

You haven't brought any new reasons. We have now achieved circularity, so it's time to quit. ― Mandruss  ☎ 10:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I have brought new reasons, so why don't you stop babbling about past things and actually respond to my proposal? Bob Roberts 10:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I have responded to your proposal, just not in the way you want me to respond. I don't have to stay in the box you build for me. ― Mandruss  ☎ 10:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? "It's time to quit", as you said, since you aren't making any sense and are arguing for no reason. Bob Roberts 10:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Galobtter the sentence does not accurately summarize the body though. Proof of it is mentioned no where else in the article. Again, saying that he has a "long record" doesn't mean anything without a few dozen examples at least. That article just lists a few, not "many". Bob Roberts 09:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I think this sentence should be removed from the lede, since he does not make many comments on race, and saying that "many of his comments were racist" is too controversial and needs to have actual proof, e.g. a list of dozens of racist comments. The sentence is not mentioned anywhere else in the article, or in the article Racial views of Donald Trump, so the only place this claim is made is in the lede of Donald trump, without proof elsewhere. Bob Roberts 09:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Delete As I have stated above, I believe this sentence should be deleted. Bob Roberts 09:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Hmm? We don't require that the lead sentences be present in the body, only that they are verifiable and summarize the body. I would say the sources that verify Trump has a history of making racially controversial remarks and taking actions that are perceived as racially motivated. also verify this (e.g Fortune speaks about a "long record"; if someone has long record of doing something, that is the equivalent of saying they have done that many times). Galobtter ( pingó mió) 09:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• [1] Another "long record" source. starship .paint ( talk) 09:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• @ BobRoberts14: were you looking for this? [2] Already in the article. starship .paint ( talk) 09:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't currently read that, since my internet isn't working well and only Wikipedia is loading. Can you give me a summary of what it says? Bob Roberts 09:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@ BobRoberts14: -

While Trump’s actions have landed on both sides of racial currents, his public record depicts a man who most often moves in one direction: overlooking racial sensitivity and concerns in the name of fighting “political correctness.” ... To understand this side of the president, especially after his remarks about the white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, we combed the archives (and Internet) for more of Trump’s words and actions on race. We found nearly 100 critical moments.

starship .paint ( talk) 09:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you think they were major, and in a short timeframe? That's what I would say means "many". Again, sorry for asking, I just can't access or read the article. Bob Roberts —Preceding undated comment added 10:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Nearly 100 is many in my book. Doesn't matter the time frame. starship .paint ( talk) 10:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah but what actually were the "actions", because not answering a question from an African-American in the audience is not major, but technically is an "action". I'm just asking if all 100 were major and prove that he is a racist. Bob Roberts 10:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

1. 1 - the actions don't have to be major, and #2 - we are not proving he is a racist. starship .paint ( talk) 00:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

It would be remarkable to not mention this. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 09:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly? Bob Roberts 10:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I have changed the wording in the body, from Trump has a history of making racially controversial remarks and taking actions that are perceived as racially motivated to Many of Trump's comments and actions since 1973 have been characterized as racially charged or racist. Two sources were also added. starship .paint ( talk) 10:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Just change it to "Many of Trump's actions have been characterizes as racist," since it is shorter and the original sentence was a run-on. Bob Roberts 10:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

And again, there is a difference between "actions" and "comments", since that source cited "actions" and not "comments". Bob Roberts 10:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

... Trump’s words and actions on race. We found nearly 100 critical moments. starship .paint ( talk) 10:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

So how about "Many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as racist."? Bob Roberts 10:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure people have already went to war on that in the second discussion. starship .paint ( talk) 10:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the difference between "racist" and "racially charged", since to me they basically mean the same thing. Having "since 1973" is definitely not necessary though. Bob Roberts 10:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources said he had a history, I stated which year. starship .paint ( talk) 12:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Not only does the same wording in the lead not need to be in the body of the article—it shouldn't be. That's poor writing. The lead is a summary of the most significant points. This certainly qualifies as one of the most significant points about the subject. This has been thoroughly discussed in the recent past.- Mr X 🖋 12:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  The thing is, MrX - was it really a faithful summary? starship .paint ( talk) 12:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  Yes. See previous discussions.- Mr X 🖋 12:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah, MrX has a point. My earlier comment was hasty and I've stricken it. ― Mandruss  ☎ 12:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  Okay then, then revert my wording if you want (keep the sources though). starship .paint ( talk) 12:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Or change to is a racist.. 2600:1702:2340:9470:8870:1FAE:CBFA:2C0C ( talk) 18:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support the change Starship.paint proposed - "Many of Trump's comments and actions since 1973 have been characterized as racially charged or racist." It provides a time frame which allows the reader to relate chronologically to the emergence of changing societal values and political correctness, and it's factually accurate. Well done, Starship! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

You don't need "since 1973", that's just necessary. Also, "racially charged" and "racist" basically mean the same thing, so just remove "racially charged".

• Keep. The argument that something should be deleted from the lead because it doesn't appear in the body is, in my view, probably the most ridiculous perennial argument. I have never subscribed to the view that the lead and the body must be perfectly synced, and even if I did, the obvious solution would be to add the content to the body. R2 ( bleep) 21:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Again R2, I don't like your derogatory adjectives, such as "ridiculous", especially since you have been blocked multiple times before and literally saying to an admin "Go the fuck away for 24 hours, you stupid excuse of an admin." No need to bring that hate here. Bob Roberts 21:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@ BobRoberts14: - you won't be winning arguments by continually bringing up people's pasts here when it isn't relevant. starship .paint ( talk) 00:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I am asking him not to use derogatory words. Bob Roberts 00:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@ BobRoberts14: - We are often in the realm of the ridiculous. You can CTRL-F how many "ridiculous" are on this page. starship .paint ( talk) 00:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Haha that is true Starship.paint, I was overreacting. Sorry Ahrtoodeetoo. Bob Roberts 00:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

(To be clear, I didn't mean by my comment that starship.paint was necessarily suggesting we delete the sentence from the lead. R2 ( bleep) 21:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC))

If it`s in the lead..which I believe it should be..it should be elaborated and supported in the article..somewhere back there is the statement that trump doesn`t make statements about race..comments that don`t specifically mention race can still easily perceived as racist. 2600:1702:2340:9470:51E5:CF7:8E89:BDDB ( talk) 00:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

First we change the lead to something the body doesn't say, then we change the body to match

[3], [4], [5], [6] There were a lot of sources in the first sentence, listed like "further reading" book cites instead of text references. Makes it more likely to miss duplicates of text references. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's called "bundling", and it's accepted practice per WP:CITEBUNDLE. Duplicates are acceptable when justified, and certainly preferable to unbundling six citations. It's notable that the software throws an error for duplicate refnames only when the citations are different, showing that the software goes out of its way to accept duplicate citations. ― Mandruss  ☎ 21:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't know that - you have to scroll WAY down on [7]. I've seen it occasionally and thought it was an error. I just tested adding an inline citation to an article three times—it looks as though the software only checks for the same refname attached to different content and for syntax (don't know if that's the correct term for Wikipedia editing); if there is no refname, you can add the same ref as many times as you like. Maybe another editor with more technical expertise can shed some light on it. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 06:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Just a note that I had already closed the 25 April 2019 RfC with the outcome of consensus for characterized. El_C 18:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Noted, and I thought the subject was closed, at least for a little longer than a couple of months. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 06:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Space for time is correct..basic 8th grade English composition..create a thesis...8th graders may not call it that but it`s the same thing..make an outline..then elaborate. 2600:1702:2340:9470:8870:1FAE:CBFA:2C0C ( talk) 18:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe that the current "Family and personal life" section of the article is far too long, especially when compared to fellow presidents such as Barack Obama. A solution to this would be to cut off some of the fluff that isn't very necessary and move it to a new article called "Personal life of Donald Trump". This could also include Health of Donald Trump, since that is part of his personal life. BobRoberts14 ( talk) 23:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

• Oppose - I prefer to move/remove/trim his actions as president and properly spin them/add them to relative articles. Trim everything down considerably with far less detail. We've got so many articles about Trump they're pushing the ad nauseum needle to tilt, and there's more yet to come. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC) ^{Add my local iVote. 18:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)}

I agree that it needs to be trimmed, but it could all be added to a single article about his personal life. BobRoberts14 ( talk) 00:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

This article is supposed to be about his personal life. All the other stuff needs to be trimmed down or moved out. Look at the former presidents' BLPs. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay that sounds good, I do think the "personal life" section needs to be trimmed a lot. BobRoberts14 ( talk) 00:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

Unless Personal life of Donald Trump (or other sub-articles) is created, there shouldn't be trimming. This is where that content currently belongs. starship .paint ( talk) 02:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I think there needs to be trimming either way, since this article is way too long and cannot even be skimmed over in a reasonable period of time, i.e. there is too much fluff (unnecessary/trivial info) Bob Roberts 02:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

You're targeting the wrong section. The family and personal life section is only around 13% of the article. starship .paint ( talk) 02:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

This section includes info that could be put into a separate article, i.e. Personal life of Donald Trump. I made an early version of it, including about all the information from the Health of Donald Trump article and the "Family and personal life" section of the Donald Trump article. Can anyone help me out with it? Bob Roberts 03:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems good except I think the lead needs significant improvement, but otherwise it's ready for publishing. The bigger question is what we remove from the Donald Trump article. I think we should also merge Trump family into Family of Donald Trump. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 03:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Onetwothreeip, can you help improve it? I think I will work on it later, but with more improvement, it could be its own article. Bob Roberts 03:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support Create a separate article named Personal Life of Donald Trump that would also include Health of Donald Trump and the "Family and personal life" section of the Donald Trump article. Bob Roberts 04:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support Create the article..expand it as much as possible warts and all. 2600:1702:2340:9470:FD62:44DA:A0F8:8960 ( talk) 17:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support you gonna delete this too mandruss ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:2340:9470:5035:7312:706E:A981 ( talk) 05:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC) Struck double vote, which is even worse than a double !vote. ― Mandruss  ☎ 12:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

That's enough, please. Your previous comment was removed for a good reason, which I warned and talked to you about here. This article subject is under discretionary sanctions, and comments that jab, poke, or attempt to snap at others, or are uncivil and contain personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please keep the discussion on-topic, your comments civil and respectful, and the overall conduct and atmosphere positive and that supports a collaborative editing environment and peaceful discussion. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The Draft:Personal life of Donald Trump was submitted recently, but I've declined it until consensus can be made here. Needs a lot more opinions from folks besides the primary editor. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 06:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• This is the personal life of Donald Trump article. Spin off hotels, casinos, golf, and wrestling if you must.- Mr X 🖋 12:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - It would be unnecessary overkill to do both this and #Proposal for resolution. I favor the latter. ― Mandruss  ☎ 12:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The hotels casinos etc have nothing to do with his personal life it`s business. 2600:1702:2340:9470:FD62:44DA:A0F8:8960 ( talk) 17:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if this is really a good idea? I searched the pedia for "Personal life of..." and found only celebrities and a few historical figures; no politicians at all. I do agree that it should not include his business or political activities. More to the point I wonder: if we create this, would really serve its purpose as a fork of this article? Because if I know us, we will probably keep most of the material here as well as adding it to the spinoff article, and we will just be left with two largely duplicative articles and a need for us to keep updating both of them. That's been the case with most of the Trump fork articles; they have been created by the dozens, and they languish in isolation while everything related to them gets put here instead. I might support this if it left only a bare-bones summary of the family and health issues here, moving most of the material to the new article. But even if we did that, I suspect people would keep adding all the details back here. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

That`s a good point but I still think all the relevant content that can be sourced should be represented on Wikipedia if for no other reason than a lot of people see him as extremely unstable..btw the double vote thing was an honest mistake..I was smoking a lot of weed last night and I forget that I posted. 2600:1702:2340:9470:FD62:44DA:A0F8:8960 ( talk) 19:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:EUI will do that. No worries. ― Mandruss  ☎ 19:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose – Undue spinoff. Trump's personal life is part of his biography, which is this article. There's nothing particularly extraordinary that would deserve a content fork. Rather trim existing content, especially overly detailed policy stuff that should be in more specialised articles, such as Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. — JFG ^talk 20:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support if and only if it isn't just a new article to get around the AFD of Health of Donald Trump. But this article is long and needs to fork somewhere.--v/r - T P 20:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Not a good idea. How would that even work? Trump doesn't draw the line between personal, business, and presidency. The only feasible way of permanently paring down this article is to move everything (the good, the bad, the ugly, everything, including everything in the lead) concerning the presidency into that article, keeping it there until he leaves office, and then add a short summation to this article. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 06:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the personal attacks on other editors. Visiting your own golf resorts, inviting the Irish prime minister to meet you at one of them while visiting his country is PR (attracting media attention [8]) for his private business; schlepping adult children—who according to Trump & Jr. & Eric are in no way involved in his presidency but are running the business belonging to him—along on a state visit and to a state dinner is mixing private life, business, and presidency, according to [9], [10]. It isn’t possible to cleanly separate the personal from the business and the presidency, and your numerous mentions of "trimming" and "unnecessary fluff" don’t take into account prior dozens of discussions whether s.th. is fluff/unnecessary/trivial, so not boding well for this article or the potential spinoff. And I see we’re off to a promising start [11]. Since you are a new editor, maybe you do not know that there are 98 archives to this page where you can peruse previous discussions. (No need to ping me, I read this page fairly regularly.) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as inappropriate removal of essential material: the lack of traditional boundaries between Trump's family, business and political endeavors is one of the defining characteristics of his presidency. -- The Anome ( talk) 12:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I see a huge contradiction here..on the one hand people are saying the article is too long..I see that as debatable however everything in the article is supposed to be there for a reason as everything is debated to death here..the same people who are saying trim the article are saying there is no need for a new article..every statement here is obviously agenda driven..I have an agenda but I admit it which is why I don`t edit articles..that would be unethical since I have a bias and a very strong one both political and personal..again my opinion is create a new article..cover his personal life extensively since there are many of us who consider him our Caligula and is extremely relevant to us despite any bias of others..if and when this article is created it is probably appropriate to move the bulk of the information there however keep a summery..most importantly keep a link here to it..I`ve seen articles moved around and linked in a way to promote an agenda and suppress others...that`s all...I don`t have time to debate any of this. 2600:1702:2340:9470:8870:1FAE:CBFA:2C0C ( talk) 17:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose in this as the person-named article *is* the BLP, which should be about his life. Trim lots, sure - but not that. Push material from here to the highlighted sub articles such as more Presidency stuff to the Presidency article. Delete trivial bits entirely. I think 50% trim could make it read more cleanly - but face it, he’s lived longer than Obama, with more wives, careers, etcetera ... so it’s just going to be more. Cheers. Markbassett ( talk) 04:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip removed [12] some content from Early life and education. The content was regarding that in the 2010s, Trump's college records were moved and sealed, and Trump's lawyer threatened his colleges with civil and criminal action if Trump's college records were revealed. Where should the content go, if not Early life and education? starship .paint ( talk) 13:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Right here in the false statements section. 2600:1702:2340:9470:F5D1:4306:F192:C3D7 ( talk) 17:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not only a matter of false statements, it's a matter of covering them up. I've kept that content on my user page if anybody wants to do anything with it, and I would appreciate if they informed me when they do. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 02:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Onetwothreeip: - so where can it go that is a better place than Early life and education, in your opinion? starship .paint ( talk) 03:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint I would say they relate more to his post-2010 political activity, first where he wanted Barack Obama to publish academic records, and then later when they were a point of contention for the 2016 election. His actual academic results, to the extent that they are at all relevant, would belong in the sections related to his early life and education. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 05:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip - well okay, so that's where I will insert them. starship .paint ( talk) 05:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint Do we have an indication that Wharton was threatened, or that Cohen claims this? How it was written seems to be only about Fordham and the Military Academy. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 05:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Onetwothreeip: Cohen said Trump directed me to threaten his high school, his colleges and the College Board to never release his grades or SAT scores ... I’m giving the Committee today copies of a letter I sent at Mr. Trump’s direction threatening these schools Cohen didn't explicitly say Wharton was threatened, but said colleges in the plural, and we do know Trump attended two colleges. Anyway, we don't say Wharton, we say colleges just how Cohen said. starship .paint ( talk) 05:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

That's fair, although the military academy he attended is also described as a college. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 06:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

We shouldn't elevate Cohen's statements here; there's too much personal bias and conflict of interest for his allegations about Trump to be taken at face value. — JFG ^talk 08:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on what you think is the conflict of interest here? Onetwothreeip ( talk) 08:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Cohen initially pledged total allegiance to Trump, then when he was under legal scrutiny (including for stuff unrelated to Trump), he started placing blame on him. Whenever Trump's and Cohen's versions of any event differ, they both put their own spin on it, and we don't know who says the truth, but Cohen is in jail in part for lying to investigators, so it's hard to take his word for anything unless independently verified. — JFG ^talk 08:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

It was verified by whom the letter was sent to. Anybody that claims anything negative about Donald Trump is just as susceptible to being labelled as personally biased and that Trump would have a different version. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 09:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@ JFG: - did you miss the part where Cohen actually produced a letter [13], and that the Military Academy and Fordham both separately confirmed receiving such letters? starship .paint ( talk) 10:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. We can rely on the letter, not on Cohen's spin about it (neither on Trump's, obviously). From its timestamp on May 5, 2015, this looks like part of preparations for Trump's campaign announcement, trying to pre-empt requests for disclosure of personal records. I reckon many presidential candidates do that, as well as some presidents. In other words, not exceptional and WP:UNDUE, unless a preponderance of RS call this action exceptional. — JFG ^talk 10:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I think this is all pretty trivial anyway, but what do you mean about other candidates doing this? It's not even necessary at all to do, since institutions can't publish this kind of information without their permission anyway. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 23:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Seems wrong section, offtopic. The section Early life and education should be facts of early life and education, not involve allegations about 60 years later. More in the topic of beginning the Presidency. Could also just drop it as trivia not significant enough for BLP. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 05:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

JFG - I'm stopping at 10 articles. Hill, PBS, WaPo, Australian ABC, Reuters, AP, NYT, Bloomberg, LA Times, Fox News. starship .paint ( talk) 06:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Given that we have subarticles on Trump's business career, there is a lot of summarising and condensing that can be done of the sections we have on this article, with some able to be moved off from here entirely. I will see what I can do but I think this should be as much a priority, or even higher, as the personal life sections in addressing the quality of the article. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 00:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Would you mind proposing any substantial removals of content here before implementing them, please? R2 ( bleep) 16:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@ JFG: Can you show us where it's considered notable that Donald Trump was nominated for the Republican Party ahead of however many other candidates there were? From what I gather, this has mostly been a self-promotional claim by Trump. What is probably more notable is that he won the nomination despite broad scepticism that he would be successful, but not that there happened to be as many no-chance candidates as there were. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 04:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The article about the 2016 Republican primaries makes it clear that the number of candidates was exceptional, and refers to many sources stating that Trump's topping the polls was at best unexpected, at worst unconscionable. — JFG ^talk 05:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the exceptional nature of Trump's nomination, but that has little to do with the amount of candidates that were in the primary election. At best this seems to be a WP:SYNTH that there was an extraordinary number of candidates, and that his nomination was extraordinary. The election for next year's Democratic Party nomination is even more crowded but we're unlikely to see any relevance of how many candidates the nominee will have "beaten", unless they are as self-promotional of that as Trump was. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 05:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I would readily agree with you if Trump was the only one to note how many people he defeated. However, lots of independent WP:RS have noted this fact, analyzed it at length and attempted to understand it, from both sides of the political bias spectrum, therefore it's a WP:DUE remark. We'll see in about a year whether the 2020 Democratic nominee crows about beating 24 others. Meanwhile, WP:WAX. — JFG ^talk 08:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

JFG That goes back to my original question. What are these non-Trump sources that regard this as notable? Onetwothreeip ( talk) 08:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's a few reputable sources describing the unexpected wins of Trump against a wide field of more-experienced, more-reasonable, or better-supported primary opponents: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] I'm sure you can find dozens more. — JFG ^talk 10:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Except maybe the first one, these sources just say there were sixteen other candidates, not that he personally defeated them. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 11:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Trump didn't "defeat" anyone at all. The electorate whittled down the number of candidates in the primaries, and then chose Trump over Clinton. The narrative that Trump "defeated" opponents is just the way Trump likes to portray it. That Trump prevailed over a large field in the primaries is notable enough for 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries, but I don't think it needs to be in this article. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

That's common language in politics. Barack Obama uses the word "defeat" twice in election contexts. The fact that the word suits Trump just fine is beside the point. ― Mandruss  ☎ 22:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Trump quite ostentatiously defeated the other candidates. Jeb Bush was torn to shreds, Rubio was punched down, even Carson was savagely attacked. All the never-Trumpers kept kicking him, he kicked back harder, and he won. Did any primary contest in living memory display such unabashed aggressivity? Look at the vocabulary used in sources covering this race: bellicose rhetoric is all over the place, and sustained over a full year. There was talk of Trump performing a hostile takeover of the Republican party. Definitely "defeated" is the most appropriate portrayal of what unfolded. — JFG ^talk 22:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

This is really the wrong way of looking at the election. Even if we accept that he "defeated" people like Bush and Rubio, we can't extend that to all the other candidates. It's also highly misleading as the way this is portrayed makes it seem like it would be harder to win in a primary election with so many candidates, but it's actually easier to win when the opposition is divided. Even with Barack Obama, we might say that he defeated John McCain or Mitt Romney, but we wouldn't be saying he defeated Gary Johnson, Jill Stein or Virgil Goode.

If editors here want to express that Trump was aggressive in attacking primary opponents, there are much better ways of doing this than essentially refactoring Trump's own narrative. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 23:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Reliable courses continually mention that Trump prevailed over 16 or 17 (depending on how it is counted) other candidates. If we accept Onetwothreeip's view that it is easier to defeat many candidates than few, then it's still significant. But sources referred to them not as the seven dwarfs (the term used for Bill Clinton's 1992 opponents), but as the best qualified Republican group ever. And of course he then went on to beat the most qualified person ever to run for president. TFD ( talk) 00:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

That's right. We can mention how many candidates there were (although I don't think that's relevant enough to be on this article), and we can mention his combative style during the primary election, but we shouldn't put those together. Yet another reason to avoid this is because we're not certain how many other candidates we are counting. The supposed level of qualification that these primary candidates have is yet another separate issue and we certainly don't have any indication that this made it harder for Trump to win. I have no idea on what basis you're claiming Hillary Clinton to be "the most qualified person ever" but I don't think that's relevant either. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 01:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Just a thought, but Onetwothreeip and I have both used "prevailed" instead of "defeated", and I think it is a more encyclopedic word that better describes the overall primary process. -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, Clinton's qualifications were a major campaign issue, as was Trump's lack of qualifications. Barack Obama, who was then serving as U.S. president, said, "There has never been a man or a woman, not me, not Bill, nobody more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president of the United States of America." Scjessey, I prefer the term prevailed because it better describes what happened. TFD ( talk) 16:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

That may very well be Barack Obama's opinion, but it's only an opinion. There are very few legally required qualifications. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 00:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

It was the expressed opinion of the Clinton campaign. If you dig through your emails you should find the memo. It was also commented on in numerous sources. The fact that it happened to be false is irrelevant. What is relevant is the coverage it got. TFD ( talk) 17:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Onetwothreeip that the exact number of primary candidates is a bit of a distraction and isn't sufficiently important to include in Trump's lead. I would suggest changing this to say that Trump defeated "a large number" of opponents. I have no strong feelings about "defeated" versus "prevailed over" and would support either one. R2 ( bleep) 17:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Given this discussion, something like "prevailed over a large number of candidates" seems the most sensible. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 00:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to "prevailed over" rather than "defeated", although it dilutes the harshly competitive and adversarial nature of that race: it was basically "everybody against Trump". To the other suggestion, I fail to see how "a large number" is better than "sixteen". — JFG ^talk 05:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Because it wasn't everybody against Trump. Candidates were attacking each other and Trump did not attack all the other candidates. We're avoiding using a single number because we're not sure what that single number would be. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 07:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. "Prevailed over a crowded field" would be a good way of saying it in a vague enough way to accommodate this fact. -- Scjessey ( talk) 11:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like "prevailed over a crowded field" would satisfy everyone's concerns. Any objections? R2 ( bleep) 16:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

No: it's unnecessarily imprecise, and next thing we know somebody will ask "why are we being weasely in that sentence?" I'd be fine with "prevailed over sixteen candidates", although "defeated sixteen candidates" is yet more concise. I fail to understand the sudden opposition to the usual "defeated" wording, which has been in the article for years, and is also used in many articles about politicians defeating their opponents at the polls. — JFG ^talk 10:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

It's necessarily imprecise, actually. Many of Trump's primary opponents defeated themselves, so it would be incorrect to say Trump defeated them all. Moreover, the fact that it was a big field (hence "crowded") is more important than the specific number, as it gives the reader unfamiliar with American politics a sense of what happened. -- Scjessey ( talk) 11:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is definitely too long, and many people agree. Regardless of that, Space4Time3Continuum2x removed it from the page without first looking for consensus. I believe it should be added back until the matter is decided upon. Bob Roberts 06:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I've restored it. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 07:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it :) Bob Roberts 07:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

It serves no practical purpose since this one of the most active talk pages on Wikipedia. Many of us have been routinely trimming the article to keep it manageable. - Mr X 🖋 15:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

You're wrong. It serves a purpose to bring new editors to the talk page who do not already regularly view it. Most people agreed to keep the tag, including Onetwothreeip and me. Don't just revert people's edits because you think you're right. The majority of editors agrede to have the tag, and the article still hasn't even been shortened. Bob Roberts 20:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with MrX. If those tags have any utility at all, it's for when the issue needs more attention than it has been receiving (lately). ― Mandruss  ☎ 16:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not only a matter of attention but also about priority. Potential editors of this article are rightly reminded of the article's length, and that should be a consideration of all editors. It's not just about bringing people to the talk page, although that's also something good coming about from tags like these. We also don't want to give the impression that the length issues are fixed, and we don't want readers of Wikipedia to think that the extreme length of this article is normal. Since this article is very long despite many people having this on their watchlist, we most certainly could use more people to contribute to discussion and to fixing the issues. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 02:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Onetwothreeip: Thank you for participating in the discussion. Now perhaps we can agree that the reasonable and orderly thing to do is restore the article to status quo ante until there is a consensus to change it. ― Mandruss  ☎ 02:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The tag serves no useful purpose. Talk page discussion is a much better venue for effecting change. The article isn't really very long, when one considers that 50% is references. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 03:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

That's an argument to be made against the tag generally, not its application on this article. One of the reasons we use this tag is that it brings editors to discussions on the talk page, it's not the tag itself that makes changes. Of course this article is very long though, including too many references especially if they are half of the article. This article is currently the 8th largest on Wikipedia. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 04:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Well some article has to be the longest, and some article has to be the 8th largest. Shortening this one only makes a different one the 8th largest, and Trump will be unhappy if his article isn't the largest of them all. Regrettably, he really is that notable. Previous presidents haven't had their fingers in as many pies as he has. That makes for many long articles about him.

The best way to shorten this one is to make sure that the sections which are summaries of sub-articles are concise and brief. Any very long sections which are not summaries could be spun off per WP:SPINOFF. That too would shorten it, but shortness is not a virtue. It's time for you to stop aiming at all the long articles and trying to shorten them. Just start improving article content and actually building them, which often has the effect of making them longer. LOL! -- BullRangifer ( talk) 04:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Notability has nothing to do with the size of articles, whether that be the ideal size or the actual size. The argument that some article has to be the largest is only a sensible when we have a situation where there are essentially no more articles that are not too long, which I don't think anybody would claim about on Wikipedia. There are at least thousands of articles that would be rightly considered too long, and many more that need improvement for many other reasons, but editors choose for themselves which articles to prioritise improving.

The subject's notability does however have a bearing on the amount of articles about the subject, and that should certainly be the case here. Generally we should have the same kinds of sub-articles for Donald Trump as we've had for Barack Obama, which is why I've started my attention on splitting off his early/personal life. My main concern is not in deleting content, but making sure that content is in the right places and not in the wrong places. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 04:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Onetwothreeip: You've done it again. [19] I remind you that the article is under discretionary sanctions and advise you not to add that tag again without consensus to do so. ― Mandruss  ☎ 00:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Clearly the status quo is for the tag to remain. Nobody here is saying this is not a very large article. Those issues haven't been fully addressed. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 00:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Clearly the only support you have in this discussion is from a low-time teenaged editor who has since changed his username and been topic-banned from AP2. In opposition are three experienced editors. That's what's clear to me. ― Mandruss  ☎ 00:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the reasons I've raised for the tag remaining. I wasn't talking about support or opposition, I was talking about what constitutes status quo. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 00:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Is this the first add? If so, it was first disputed roughly 52 hours later, here. Fifty-two hours is hardly long enough to establish status quo ante, since even regular editors often go longer between activity at the article. Subsequent time in the article doesn't count toward SQA since those reverts were illegitimate, and it still wouldn't constitute SQA if it did. ― Mandruss  ☎ 00:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• 2,629 editors have this page on their watch lists. I don't see the reason for a tag looking for more editors. O3000 ( talk) 00:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Make that four experienced editors in opposition. ― Mandruss  ☎ 00:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Can we just dispel the notion that the tag is to be there to get more editors to the talk page? It's completely a strawman argument. I'm not saying it's a matter of how long the tag was there, it's a matter of how long the article has been the extreme size that it's been. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 00:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's the major purpose of tags. O3000 ( talk) 00:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

As has been said multiple times, we have multiple initiatives already underway to significantly reduce article size. Give them a chance to work. This is not an issue that is being neglected. ― Mandruss  ☎ 00:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

That's not really the major purpose of tags in general, but it's often a purpose. The tag should remain to tell those who seek to edit the article, regardless of their level of experience or their involvement in the talk pages. I think we would prefer that editors are aware that the article is large when they make edits, either in considering how they add to content or in encouraging editors to resolve these issues. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 00:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. You have articulated your position well, and you still lack a consensus. That's how it works, as frustrating as it may be. ― Mandruss  ☎ 00:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I'm frustrated over this, but I'm more confused. Can someone explain the argument that the tag shouldn't be there because people already know it? I can see why that would mean someone wouldn't add it, but not why someone would remove it. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 00:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you're assuming there is a "correct" answer here. As with most Wikipedia issues, there are only viewpoints. ― Mandruss  ☎ 01:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're telling me this, it has nothing to do with what I said. You're not obligated to respond to me at all but clearly that doesn't answer my query. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 01:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Well the last time editors ceased responding to you, you took that as a green light to add the tag again. I was trying to avoid a recurrence of that. But no, I frankly don't feel the need to explain myself further. ― Mandruss  ☎ 02:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

What I took as a "green light" was that you said you supported returning to the status quo while discussion was ongoing. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 02:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

My mistake then, I assumed an editor with your experience knew that 52 hours does not mean status quo ante in any circumstances. ― Mandruss  ☎ 02:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

As I said, it was nothing to do with the tag being there for any amount of time like most content disputes would be. It was the amount of time that the article's size was an issue, the tag is just a formality of that. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 02:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Add the tag again and see how far that argument gets you at AE. ― Mandruss  ☎ 02:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

All the regular editors of this article are aware that it is too long, and most are usefully engaged in trying to alleviate the problem. The tag is unnecessary; moreover, it is adding another transcluded template and exacerbating the problem (albeit insignificantly). -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I split the "Energy" and "Climate" sections and added the following language to the Energy section:

− On March 28, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13783 on Energy Independence. ^[1] This Executive Order directed the Environmental Protection Agency to suspend, revise, or rescind actions related to the Clean Power Plan that the administration argued stifle the American energy industry. ^[2] As a result, in early December 2018, the US became a net exporter of oil, after nearly 75 continuous years of dependence on foreign oil. ^[3]

Even though written from a neutral point of view, cited properly, and relevant, the edit was reverted by Ahrtoodeetoo, stating it was not neutral. I have no clue what the issue with this edit could be, since as you can see it IS written from a neutral point of view, and the edit should be reinstated forthwith. JohnTopShelf ( talk) 18:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

You make a dubious connection (synth) between EO 13783 and America becoming a net oil exporter, while you do not mention these far more obvious connections: The Obama administration cleared the way for the first exports of unrefined American oil in nearly four decades, allowing energy companies to start chipping away at the longtime ban on selling U.S. oil abroad in 2014 and With the stroke of a pen, President Barack Obama on Friday ended 40 years of U.S. crude oil export limits by signing off on a repeal passed by Congress earlier in the day in 2015. soibangla ( talk) 18:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, Obama allowing unrefined oil to be exported has little if anything to do with the U.S. being a NET oil exporter. We became a net oil exporter by producing more oil than we use. That did not happen under Obama, or as a result of Obama stroking a pen. As you are no doubt aware, Obama consistently took measures to reduce, not increase, America's fossil fuel production. JohnTopShelf ( talk) 19:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Obama did indeed take measures consistent with the pressing climate crisis, but at the same time he paved the way for exports. In contrast, Trump's policy ignores (and even denies) the scientific reality of the climate crisis and has paved the way for energy companies to enrich themselves at the expense of the planet. Your edits attempted to uncouple the connection between energy and climate and treat energy like it was in a vacuum. Moreover, your hagiographic verbiage failed to neutrally present the tremendous criticism Trump's actions attracted. -- Scjessey ( talk) 19:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Scjessey ( talk): Including language such as "climate crisis", "paved the way for energy companies to enrich themselves at the expense of the planet", "tremendous criticism", and "hagiographic verbiage" in your statement shows your bias and does not further a reasonable discussion of this issue. Further, I am certainly not trying to paint President Trump as a saint. However, I can't help but notice that many editors seem intent on doing just that with the Barack Obama article, which includes about 1% as much critical language as the Donald Trump article. JohnTopShelf ( talk) 20:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

We became a net oil exporter by producing more oil than we use is incorrect. We became a net exporter because we exported more than we imported, and this was possible because the export ban was repealed. Moreover, your assertion that this made us oil-independent is incorrect, as we still import lots of oil. soibangla ( talk) 22:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Nothing is getting reinstated "forthwith" without consensus. There were multiple problems with this content, including:

1. The paragraph mixes the concepts of energy exports (or energy independence) and oil exports (or oil independence). These are quite different things.
2. The critical phrase "as a result," which purports to tie the paragraph together, fails verification. The Bloomberg source doesn't say anything about any executive order.
3. Public statements by the Trump White House aren't reliable for anything.
4. There has to be a really compelling reason to use a primary source in this article, such as EPA and White House statements. If something is noteworthy about Donald Trump, you'll find it in independent secondary sources. The independent secondary sources will guide us in understanding a neutral presentation.
5. There needs to be a showing that the subject matter is noteworthy to fit into this extremely dense (and probably too long) article. This generally requires multiple independent secondary sources demonstrating some long-term significance.
6. If we're going to include content about the rollback of the Clean Power Plan, then we have to treat it in a comprehensive fashion. I haven't followed Trump's efforts closely, but I know what you added isn't comprehensive. Trump's policy to rollback the CPP have been the news for years, and is a lot more than about net energy exports.

R2 ( bleep) 18:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

1)The public statement by the White House was to explain Trump's rationale behind the executive order; for that purpose the cite is reliable. 2)The EPA website is cited to show the date of the order to EPA; for that purpose it is the best reference. 3)Achieving oil independence is certainly noteworthy. 4)As you note, the article is dense - it is not the place for a comprehensive treatment of the Clean Power Plan. But there is no point in me continuing, due to the "consensus" requirement, which apparently trumps (no pun intended) all of the other Wikipedia policies, including the foundation principle of "neutral point of view". The editors here have demonstrated that there will likely never be consensus for any positive statement regarding Trump's policies or actions, although there can be consensus to characterize him as a liar and racist in the lead section. JohnTopShelf ( talk) 20:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

You might be more successful in that regard if you focused more on consensus building and less on the ad hominems, the obviousness, and the unfairness of it all. R2 ( bleep) 21:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course I am trying to include a positive statement in the article, in an effort to offset all the criticism in the article. (I don't take issue with well-cited, accurate criticism, and there are certainly areas in which Trump should be criticized.) But it should also be obvious that there is a significant difference in the content and point of view of BLP articles about liberals vs. articles about conservatives. A few positive statements about conservatives and a few critical statements about liberals, properly cited of course, would certainly help in tipping the balance ever so slightly toward level. JohnTopShelf ( talk) 22:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should represent facts as perceived by reliable sources. The simple fact of the matter is that in the last 50 years or so, Republican presidents have generally managed to do a lot more bad shit worthy of scathing critique than Democratic presidents, and Trump is perhaps the worst of them all. The same is true for other politicians, although as you get closer to the local level it seems like Democrats tend to be more problematic. -- Scjessey ( talk) 22:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, Scjessey ( talk)? This is your idea of a reasonable, objective debate on an issue? You consider it a fact that Republican presidents have generally managed to do a lot more bad shit worthy of scathing critique than Democratic presidents, and Trump is perhaps the worst of them all? I understand we all have opinions, but statements like yours have no place in this or any discussion.- JohnTopShelf ( talk) 12:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

It's far more simple than that. As a result, in early December 2018, the US became a net exporter of oil, after nearly 75 continuous years of dependence on foreign oil ranges from speculative to false. It really is just that simple. soibangla ( talk) 23:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you have misunderstood our neutrality policy. It says that we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant items that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. This does not mean that Topic A (e.g. Trump) and Topic B (e.g. some other politician) should have the same ratio of "positive" versus "negative" content. In fact, there's very little criticism in the article at all. Most of what's in there is simply a summary of verifiable facts. The fact that some of those facts might reflect negatively or positively on the subject is not our concern. On top of that, neutrality doesn't mean we publish information not supported by the cited sources. R2 ( bleep) 23:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• User:JohnTopShelf thanks for adding, and mostly this is good.

• the first line EO and EPA cite are fine,
• the announced intent and White House cite are fine
• the exports exceeding imports and cite are mostly good, but drop the beginning “As a result” as that credits the EO, but Bloomberg credits the Shale boom.

I suggest seeking another cite or two in the energy area, perhaps other events occur between early 2017 and late 2018. (Pipelines perhaps?) You should also consider posting to Presidency of Donald Trump. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 23:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

User:JohnTopShelf On second thought, fix is too easy so I’ll just edit from what you had. Others can add more Energy material maybe. (Opening Federal areas for drilling, the odd phrase “Energy Dominance”, the “Affordable Clean Energy Plan” (pro-coal), the New Mexico lease, etcetera.) Will see what happens. The prior material was only Climate so it makes sense to at least fix it’s title anyway. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 23:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

You might think the EPA and White House citations are fine, but that doesn't mean they're supported by consensus. R2 ( bleep) 00:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

You seem to not understand that sources are never a matter of consensus; they are presented to satisfy WP:V give the source so people can check it is from something other than beliefs and experiences of editors, and that the article text is a fair paraphrase. Never a matter of consensus, but rather a matter of factually where did you get that article line. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 03:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

It really should go without saying that the White House and the EPA are not neutral sources. If this is notable in any way then we should expect reliable news media sources. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 05:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I followed the suggestions and advice, and fixed my edit. Thank you to everyone for your assistance in making this article better.- JohnTopShelf ( talk) 12:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Your latest edits did not follow the suggestions and advice. You cherry-picked some feedback and ignored the rest. R2 ( bleep) 16:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's a fact check of the claim that the US became a net exporter of crude oil: No, The U.S. Is Not A Net Exporter Of Crude Oil. We need to do a bit more research before including this claim, especially in Wikipedia's voice. – bradv 🍁 13:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's another Bloomberg article from just days later:

The U.S. Energy Information Administration has published its first detailed monthly oil forecast for 2020 and it shows something that should strike fear into the hearts of OPEC ministers — from the fourth quarter, America will export more oil than it imports. This won’t make the U.S. independent of the global supply chain.

Bloomberg is highly reliable, but every reliable source errs occasionally, and I think the Bloomberg article in the edit was seriously botched. Again, the reason exports have soared is because the 40-year export ban was repealed in Dec 2015. This was done in part due to the fracking boom, because it created a huge supply glut that had nowhere to go, but it couldn't have gone anywhere unless the export ban had been lifted. That was the key factor at play, not Trump's policies, not the fracking boom. soibangla ( talk) 17:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course the fracking boom has had a lot to do with it. It's a combination or market forces and regulatory reform. But no reliable source has indicated that the Trump administration was the cause. Plus, again, we're mixing oil with natural gas and other sources of energy. The two cannot be conflated (as the proposed content does). R2 ( bleep) 23:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't his environmental policies be included in the lead? Arguably, it's been one of the policies in government that he has effectively changed by means of executive orders and control over various governmental agencies. The fact that he has pulled out of the Paris Agreement, stopped the planned [[Clean Power Plan], and his belief that humans are not behind climate change, among other factors, seems to be independent enough to include in the lead. Does anyone have any objections to adding it? MarvellingLiked ( talk) 14:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The Paris agreement pull out is already in the lead. His views on climate change are pretty much boiler plate Republican. His actions with respect to the Clean Power Plan are not really lead worthy.- Mr X 🖋 16:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Add It 2600:1702:2340:9470:384E:CC1E:DA23:D760 ( talk) 02:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN - your correction missed the mark per MOS:JOBTITLES. In that particular case (no pun intended) it was not a generic reference, it was a reference to Trump: When a title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name, e.g., the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN was correct. "The president" is never capitalized. That's a generic reference, even if it was talking about a specific president. (Notice I didn't write "specific President.") R2 ( bleep) 16:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I am well aware of this, because I recently lost a fight to capitalize First Lady in generic usage. We now say first lady. Yeah, I hate it too, but that's what Reliable Sources now mandate, and that's what MOS calls for. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Nope - unless MOS:JOBTITLES is changed so that all references are considered generic - While running for president, - and no longer follow direct references - the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II - then we are obligated to stick with MOS. When the sentence states: They argued that the president's [referring to Trump] issues affect the mental health of the United States population - we are not referring generically to the health of all presidents, we are referring to Trump which is upper case the same as it is with the Queen. See the example I included, and maybe re-read MOS. You are misinterpreting generic with direct reference. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, I’m not going to defend this usage and I don’t actually like it. But it does appear to be the way Wikipedia is now styling this word. I argued against this kind of rule at Talk:First Lady of the United States#Changing First Lady to lowercase and Talk:Hillary Clinton#Capitalization of "first lady”. But I lost the argument; it was won by several people who seem very familiar with the MOS rules. Among other things, they said that the word isn’t capitalized when preceded by “the”. And they cited authoritative sources. I generally honor RS over MOS, but RS agree with them: [20] [21] [22] If you want to argue this, take it up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

P.S. But I do agree that this wording should make it clearer that they are talking about Trump himself, and I will reword it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that we're not "obligated" to follow the MOS, regardless of what it says. By its own intro, it's a guideline intended to help editors write articles consistently. We're not a bureaucracy. If articles are being written inconsistently with the MOS, and consensus supports how those articles are being written, then editing in accordance with the MOS actually undercuts its purpose (as odd as that might sound). The solution, for those who are bothered by differences between the MOS and common practice, is to change the MOS to reflect common practice. R2 ( bleep) 20:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

That's frankly absurd. If MOS followed common practice on this, it would read: "Do whatever seems right to you, and have a nice day." The MOS discussions have closely examined the best available language authorities (which is generally not done at article level) and discussed this at sufficient length, and the product of that effort is the current guideline. There is absolutely no reason why the capitalization criteria for the word "president" should vary between articles. ― Mandruss  ☎ 20:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of your speculation of what it means, the MOS is still a guideline, not a policy. It is to be applied with common sense, and we are not required to follow it. R2 ( bleep) 21:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

We can reasonably be expected to follow it except where one can make a somewhat strong case to deviate. "I disagree with that" is not a somewhat strong case to deviate. ― Mandruss  ☎ 21:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

MOS:JOBTITLES bullet 2 (which I clearly specified for editors' convenience in the edit summary of the edit in which I capitalized that word:) "[They are capitalized only in the following cases:] When a title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name, e.g., the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II." Why are we having this discussion? ― Mandruss  ☎ 20:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

How come when you say it, they listen, but when I say the same thing, I get in trouble for bludgeoning... ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Who says anybody's listening? This problem will continue to plague us until the community realizes that MOS is a special animal that reasonably needs to be handled top-down, not bottom-up like other types of guidelines. Or, submits MOS to MFD. ― Mandruss  ☎ 21:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Ahrtoodeetoo the situation is a bit messier — sometimes it is the President, and there does seem to be allowance of local consensus, plus some misreading of it as directive to reword so as to get to lowercase, and a de facto that the prior MOS saying the other way is still mostly what’s out there. I believe that the change to MOS:JOBTITLES was somewhat wrong for the bullet re titles are capitalised not by their directive of if a ‘the’ precedes it but whether it is followed by ‘of #placename’ making it a proper noun. I was against lowercase ‘the queen of the United Kingdom’ enough to revert edits that way and this seems accepted. That it should always be a P in phrases such as “President of the United States” is not accepted and got changed in a lot of the prominent pages, but most usages are on other pages and seem capitalised. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 03:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization of titles, such as "the Queen" or "the President" is sometimes made out of respect but is not necessary. TFD ( talk) 04:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

True, but here we are talking more of where grammar guides and/or the former MOS dictated capitalised. So currently it’s a bit of a mess, as things often are. The new MOS use has gotten to decapitalize many prominent US cases. Generally it seems nobility and foreign leaders still are capitalised. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 03:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

How about a reference to Trump Heights in the Israel section?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 06:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Please ask yourself if this purely symbolic naming of an empty patch of ground in an illegally occupied part of Syria is biographically significant. I would argue the answer is an emphatic no. -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

We don't agree on a lot, but I have to agree with Scjessey ( talk) on this, although I would use slightly less emphasis on the no.;)- JohnTopShelf ( talk) 13:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I did think about it, and I thought the answer was a clear yes, with the qualification that it would be better to check with other editors before editing the article. As for Scjessey's response, is there any other kind of naming than "purely symbolic naming"? Aren't Mt Everest, Mt McKinley, Mt Rushmore etc basically "empty patches of ground"? Doesn't the fact that the land is in "illegally occupied part of Syria" make it more significant, not less?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 02:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

List of things named after Donald Trump. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 02:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

It isn't an actual settlement. It's a proposal and they don't even have an agreed upon site. MAYBE when/if it gets built, it would be worth mentioning but right now, it only exists by name, it isn't a reality. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

So Mt Everest doesn't exist???-- Jack Upland ( talk) 03:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Mt Everest is in itself notable (as are the other mountains), whereas the patch of undeveloped ground called "Trump Heights" is not. It certainly isn't content worthy of inclusion in this biography, particularly as we are working hard to try to trim its length. I honestly can't believe we are still discussing this. -- Scjessey ( talk) 11:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Mt Everest doesn't exist anymore - it's now Denali.- JohnTopShelf ( talk) 20:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

We wouldn't be discussing this if your arguments made sense.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 22:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@ JohnTopShelf: Mt Everest has been moved to Alaska and renamed (first Mt McKinley and then) Denali? Amazing. Bishonen | talk 06:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC).

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

The description on President Trump's wikipedia page needs links and sources. It currently reads as it is claiming truth without any evidence of this truth linked. Please fix according to wikipedia edit guidelines. Thank you. :) 98.209.9.176 ( talk) 03:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Please review Wikipedia:Edit requests. As stated there (and in the instructions presented to you in the path to this request), edit requests are not for general suggestions for improvement to the article. You must be specific about what you want changed to what. You can start a more general discussion, but that's done by clicking "New section" at the top of this page, not via the edit request process. And even that would need to be more specific than what you have written here. ― Mandruss  ☎ 03:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Note also that the lead paragraphs summarize the referenced material in the body of the article, and do not require in-line references, since those are provided farther down in the the article. Acroterion (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I would like to bring attention to some of the excessive detail that we have on this article. For example in the early life section, the last two paragraphs are about events that have happened in the last ten years, although they reflect on his early life. They don't appear to belong on this article, but removing this content from Wikipedia altogether seems like censorship so I'm hesitant to take that step. Ideally this article would be more like Barack Obama, generally regarded as a good article, where most sections are essentially summaries of sub-articles. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 23:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Onetwothreeip: support splitting this up, but not removing completely - I've had similar thought recently -- DannyS712 ( talk) 23:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I would start with something like Early life of Donald Trump, and moving more of the content here to the subarticle about his business career, which should probably be combined with the article about his wealth. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 00:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The last paragraph probably doesn't belong in this article. The second to the last paragraph does, but it can be be shortened.- Mr X 🖋 12:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Article size

Within a space of 24 hours, the article has been tagged as {{ too long}} and we exceeded the template limits yet again (see archives for history). We still have either 20 months or 68 months to go and this problem is not going away for some time.

The {{ too long}} template message suggests we consider splitting, condensing, or adding subheadings (unclear how the latter makes an article shorter). Short of moving the bottom half of the article to Donald Trump, page 2, I see no way to split that hasn't already been done. As I see it, that leaves two options:

1. Scalpel approach. Every time we exceed the template limit, drop one or more non-citation templates as was done here today. Or find some prose to remove with its associated citation templates.
2. Chainsaw approach. This being the top-level biography, remove the recentist near-daily chronology of politics and government and stop adding that kind of content.

Support #2 as far easier, while making a lot of sense anyway. ― Mandruss  ☎ 08:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I assume the "page 2" proposal has been made in jest. We absolutely should not have the daily chronology of politics on this article, as you say. There's also frankly too much prose in this article as well, because more keeps getting added without anything being removed or replaced. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 10:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I support the spirit of #2, but editors will have different opinions about what's important and what's not. We can't just delete recent information if it's important. WP:RECENTISM should be seen as a guiding principal, not a rule.- Mr X 🖋 12:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I think we should be able to reach a consensus endorsing a "resolution" that content related to his presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. That would clearly exclude "Trump also praised Poland under the EU-skeptic, anti-immigrant Law and Justice party (PiS) as a defender of Western civilization." Merely removing that and everything like it, and pointing to the consensus whenever somebody attempts to add something new like it, would in my opinion solve the size issues for the remainder of his presidency. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution would not apply, but I don't think there would be any editors claiming that the example given is likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. And nobody would call it summary-level in any case. ― Mandruss  ☎ 13:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree to this, without the need for a specific resolution. I think we can exercise judgement here and let editors remove what they see fit to remove along these lines, and restore it if there is disagreement. In general anything that looks like it was added to the article the day that it happened doesn't belong on the article. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 13:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

That's essentially no change to what we have now, which is what got us to where we are now. I would have already done tons of BOLD removals (and BRD reverts of additions, to the small extent allowed by ArbCom), but I knew that would be seen as disruptive without a group agreement that those removals move the article in the right direction. It would also consume an inordinate amount of time debating the principle at the detail level, one removal at a time. I therefore strongly oppose that approach. ― Mandruss  ☎ 14:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

You waited for a BOT to announce this page was too long to finally agree something must be done about it? You restored totally tangential material that exists solely to malign Trump supporters and has nearly zero to do with this BLP. You recently argued that there is no reason things cannot appear verbatim in not only this article but in 3,4,5 other daughter articles as well, which totally defeats the purpose of having daughter articles. Are you considering forking numerous sections or just trimming the fat? For the record, the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama featured articles are 300K and 340K respectively and this one, which isn't even within a hope and prayer of being rated a Good Article, much less a featured one is just over 450K.-- MONGO ( talk) 15:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Please look for a fight elsewhere, we're trying to have a constructive discussion here. ― Mandruss  ☎ 15:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I really am not looking for a fight, but I do want to hear how you plan on trimming this when the opposite has been true Mandruss...do you want help or is this just talk? Can you pick sections in particular you think need to be trimmed or moved whole or in part to daughter articles or perhaps new articles?-- MONGO ( talk) 15:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Language like do you want help or is this just talk? belies your claim that you are not looking for a fight. Of course I want to help, and of course this is not just talk. I gave one illustrative example, and it doesn't take a lot of imagination to extrapolate that to the numerous other examples like it. I think you've largely missed the gist of my comments. ― Mandruss  ☎ 15:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Last few times I tried to keep some of the recentism at bay and keep this article from spinning out of control it simply led to nonstop arguments and some of the worst lack of AGF I have ever encountered on this website. So lets say I start cleaning up things, am I once again going to have to explain every single adjustment?-- MONGO ( talk) 16:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Well gosh, that sounds a lot like what I said here, so shouldn't we be on the same side on this? ― Mandruss  ☎ 16:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Lets look at the Barack Obama article, a Featured level article. It has roughly 500 sources...and I think that is excessive, but this one has over 900 sources. Kbs are also based on the space taken up by sources, so one way the "fat" can be trimmed right off without losing content is to simply dump the less authoritative reliable sources and especially, unless something has been totally in nonstop dispute, cease backing it up with 4,5 6 separate sources, many of which only parrot what the primary source says anyway. One might be able to trim 25-30K just by a mass reduction of redundancy in sources.-- MONGO ( talk) 16:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes! More sauce, fewer sources! -- Scjessey ( talk) 16:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we could certainly trim redundant sources starting with the less reputable ones first. However, it is incumbent upon any editor removing sources to make absolutely sure that the remaining source(s) fully verifies the article text as written.- Mr X 🖋 16:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I’d just like to say that if you remove information, can you check whether it is already present in a sub-article or a related article. If no, insert it there. Thanks. starship .paint ( talk) 14:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I support removal of whatever falls under RECENTISM, has no lasting value, and/or represents yada yada opinions & gossip that are not supported by corroborated factual information. The article is not a summary; rather, it's more like a scrapbook of news articles. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree, this article is not well constructed, since it has way too much throughout that is unnecessary. For example, the start of the article lists dozens of his policies, when that is not something necessary in the lede. His travel ban was major, but that was over two years ago, and it is no longer a large issue either way. Same goes for a lot of other fluff that belongs in separate articles. BobRoberts14 ( talk) 15:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

The lede is absolutely the last place to begin cutting, and also by far the most difficult. There's a ton of low hanging fruit in sections on early life, family, religion, his business career, the election, and his presidency to trim away at first. -- Scjessey ( talk) 16:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I still believe the lede needs to be cut, because some of the policies aren't as major as policies that aren't even in the lede. Obama's policy part of the lede is as long as Donald Trump's, even though Obama was president for six more years. BobRoberts14 ( talk) 16:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

It`s spelled lead...this has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama...Support #1..there is nothing in this article that supposedly isn`t in by concensus..one step at a time..keep what is relevant..add what is relevant. 2600:1702:2340:9470:5035:7312:706E:A981 ( talk) 03:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for resolution

Apparently this topic was archived, but are we not going to make any mention under section Side Ventures that Trump was engaged in corporate takeover activities in the 1980s? Maybe some don't like how his activities were characterized ("corporate raider") but shouldn't we at least note that he was doing it? soibangla ( talk) 02:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Please do. 2600:1702:2340:9470:257F:BC74:33A6:70FE ( talk) 04:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Please do not add any. The Archive 97 discussion didn’t have much content or interest from editors, but it seems little trading activity happened and the LABEL does not seem widely supported. The article already is too big and jammed, this seems trivial enough to skip. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 05:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Please do. For those who missed it, the archived discussion was triggered by a major story last month in which the New York Times used Trump's tax history to analyze his business career. Despite Markbassett's assertion, the majority of editors who participated in the discussion supported adding content. This is a significant part of Trump's career and deserves at least a few sentences, even if there's no hint of wrongdoing. There are lots and lots of reliable sources on this subject, going back decades. Here are just a few I found from pre-2019 with hardly any digging: [23] [24] [25]. By my understanding Trump didn't do much taking over, so I wouldn't characterize this as "corporate takeover activities." R2 ( bleep) 21:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Nope, most in the discussion did NOT want the proposed edit here - count five against were MONGO, TFD, JFG, O3000, Markbassett. Four supported adding the edit here- soibangla, MrX, R2, and Space4Time. (At least 3 of the Nos were basically poor editing and/or wrong article.) Also, the recent NYT piece that was stuck in immediately seems the only one with this interpretation on 30+ years ago events. The Barrett book sounds like the closest and BESTSOURCE for this, but that's not much and it seems to not have the NYT take on things. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 04:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I've been trying to write something since that last discussion over a month ago but ran into difficulties trying to keep it short (and the moral indignation in check) because it's such a convoluted mess involving stock buying and "parking" through Bear Stearns and using insider information from a Drexel analyst. I'll keep at it & will add if someone else gets to it first. As for the subsubheading, how about the term CNN uses, activist investor? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)