Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 74

This is an archive of past discussions about Donald Trump. 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.

Archive 70

←

Archive 72

→

Public image section

I can't find a section lile this in other articles about U.S. presidents. It seems to be a hodgepodge of all sort of different issues and events that are best covered in appropriate section (and in many cases already are). FloridaArmy (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Trump's article has a "public image" section because there is not yet enough material for its own article. There soon will be, and it will be spun off in the same manner as with previous presidents. Examples: Public image of Barack Obama, Public image of George W. Bush, Public image of Bill Clinton, Public image of Ronald Reagan et al. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Trump tried to fire Mueller

This is something to keep an eye on for possible inclusion in this article: It doesn't get much more Nixonian than this.- Mr X 🖋 04:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: - Added to Donald Trump#Special counsel Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Galobtter That edit's a bit conflusing in tmeline since this is reporting a June item. I'll try a patch to make that clearer for the moment, although I doubt that any of it passes both not being WP:OFFTOPIC for a WP:BLP and the WP:DUE a mention. Seems like a trivial rerun of the June tale going nowhere and just down into tidbit WP:GOSSIP scandalmongering. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

It has been independently corroborated by at least three reputable news organizations, and it's entirely consistent with other Trump actions like firing Comey. In no way is it gossip or scandal mongering. - Mr X 🖋 18:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

It's very significant, adding to a growing pattern of obstruction of justice. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not WP:DUE because coverage for this tidbit of the larger Meuller story arc just is tiny --- googling, Trump+Meuller at site:BBC.COM gets over 4700 hits; adding +McGahn and timeframe in the last week gets one hit of the calling it Fake News at at the Davos conference here, along with other topics there, and background links to could Trump be found guilty (unlikely), and why attacks on Meuller are mounting (indications of possible bias). It is scandal mongering / gossip because ... it's spreading unnamed sources coming with idle talk or rumor of sensational nature (gossip) and mostly the content of the articles is speculative over what that might mean and responses from various factions. The Washington post can be relied on actually having checked reasonable sources -- and their article says Trump was considering firing, not that he actually rdered it, and that McGahn said to someone other than Trump he would not stay along with rehash of many advisors said 'bad idea', so ... there seems a lot of factual gaps in any portrayal. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

All the mainstream reports I have seen state that POTUS ordered the dismissal and that he reversed himself after White House Counsel treatened to quit. As we've previously discussed, sources that are not identified in the press are not "anonymous" in the sense that they are not known by or accountable to the RS journalists. SPECIFICO talk 01:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

State of the Union Address

Some commentary is now developing regarding yesterday's address. Some possibly noteworthy observations: Lots of misstatements of fact. Racial animus, mention of gangs, etc. Proposal for legislation to allow cabinet secretaries to fire civil servants, misstatement of economic statistics. Unusually large number of gallery shots of invited guests with stories. Any suggestions as to how we evaluate all the commentary? Also the hot-mike pickup about the Nunes Memo was remarked on by many. SPECIFICO talk 17:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I expect all that to receive substantial coverage in Impeachment of Donald Trump. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Could also cover the approval rating of the speech. 3rd longest speech ever. I am not sure the Nunes memo one has much legs. Laying out his 4 part plan for immigration. All got pretty good coverage. Though Presidency of Donald Trump would probably be the right article for that stuffs. PackMecEng (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hot mike would go elsewhere, I agree. If he OKs releasing the memo that will likely go here. Likely in the lede, given the rapidly escalating controversy around it. The misrepresentations surrounding the US economy and the threatening tone viz. North Korea (simultaneous with the withdrawal of his nominee for S. Korean ambassador) are getting a lot of attention. SPECIFICO talk 18:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah the North Korea stuff was pretty hard line, I have not seen a response from them yet though. I'm sure it will be another fire and bluster moment there. Probably a good call on the memo part going to that article, last I remember hearing on the release of that was on the 5th if I am not mistaken. What kind of misrepresentations of the economy were you thinking? PackMecEng (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose anything in the lead based on rapidly escalating controversy. Needs far more historical perspective (and I don't mean years and decades). ―Mandruss ☎ 00:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I think his dissembling about the stock market, employment, Black unemployment, the tax cut, and so forth were covered this morning by the usual fact-checkers including WaPo Pinocchio Desk. SPECIFICO talk 01:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Suggest do not cover it in this article. Seems like State of union speech is an action of Presidency and not a life-changing BLP type event for him. Maybe something for the Presidency article, but there seems not much significance or relative size to coverage, so maybe just not a State of union speech worth a mention even there. Markbassett (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:IMGSIZE edit

Closed - IMGSIZE does indeed state to not use it. Reverted. –Davey2010^Talk 22:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Re:

I'm not sure what to make of this. My edit was 100% in line with the WP:IMGSIZE policy I cited. "Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width." I'd be interested to hear the very good reason that qualifies this as the only image in the article using a px value. Barring that, I'm seeking a consensus to comply with clear image policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

"thumb|300px" is commonly used on all articles here and so I see no valid reason to change it just because of IMGSIZE - Unless the actual parameter is deprecated then as I said it shouldn't be replaced. By all means go to the appropriate venue and seek a community consensus for these changes. –Davey2010^Talk 21:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:PG: "Policies are standards that all users should normally follow...". Saying something is "fine" is not an argument for not following one. No, I'm not going to go ask the community if we should comply with Wikipedia policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

By the way, for anyone who isn't aware: That part of the policy was created in support of the user preference for image size, which is ignored when a px value is used. The user preference is meant to address the problem of widely different display sizes and resolutions. There has been massive community-level discussion about this over a span of years, and the policy represents the consensus of those discussions. If we don't widely replace px values with |upright= scaling, the user preference is largely useless (not to mention confusing to readers who try to use it since it doesn't work), and it might as well be eliminated. There are still many px values that need to be converted, this can't be automated because of the need for special cases, and WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress. The effort is not helped by reasoning that we can't make progress because there is too much left to be done. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I support Mandruss' change. Scaling leaves the visible image size in control of readers, which is why it's part of the image use policy and the MOS.- Mr X 🖋 22:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Readers/Editors aren't going to change it (there would be no need too), "thumb|300px" works so I don't see why it would need replacing ?, As for screen resolutions - That's forever going to be an issue no matter what browser you use, As I said PX to this day is still most commonly used and like I said there's no valid reason to replac eit. –Davey2010^Talk 22:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 February 2018

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

The first sentence of this article reads, "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United States, in office since January 20, 2017." In terms of copy editing, this would be more clear if it read "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United States. He has been in office since January, 20, 2017." Hanhim7 (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Not done - The first two sentences have been massively discussed and have a strong consensus. See links at #Current consensus item 17. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambig?

There's no need for the disambig notice at the head of this article; it detracts from it and I don't think that's done for other president's pages, is it? Xerton (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know, but it has been discussed and has consensus. See #Current consensus item 17. If there are other presidents who share their name with one or more other persons who have Wikipedia articles, they might warrant such a hatnote—but that's not for discussion here. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Washington has the same kind of dab notice, although more detailed. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Real News Update (Trump TV)

You are invited to participate in Talk:Real News Update#RfC: claims of news stories ignored by the media. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 February 2018

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

Lehuudb (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Not done - no change was requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Adding criticized as racist to lead

Closing this discussion. Consensus is not to include the sentence. Fish+Karate 13:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Since when I proposed it 2 weeks ago it kinda died down without a conclusion, I'm reproposing it:

Add "Many of his comments have been criticized as racist, which he has denied." after "His election and policies have sparked numerous protests." in the lead. (if you would support with a rewording/prefer another wording can also indicate that)

Survey: Adding criticized as racist to lead

Support per my comments two weeks ago. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose not an important enough aspect of Trump for the lead. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Support adding something along the lines proposed, expanded to include the popular appeal of such statements. Countless reliable sources report that Trump's racist statements are indeed "an important enough aspect", so (unsourced) WP:fringe theories like that expressed above by User:Emir of Wikipedia can be ignored, in line with policy. zzz (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not a fringe theory. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. with a footnote saying Do not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section. You show these countless reliable sources saying that his "racist statements" are the most important point about him. It is OR and/or fringe theory to make such a claim, not the one I made which is about the absence of sources. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a selection of sources in the relevant section of the article. I have yet to see a reliable source backing up your theory. zzz (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Those sources are appropriate for that section, they don't state that him being criticized as racist are amongst his important aspects. What o you mean you have yet to see a reliable source backing up my theory? I am not presenting a theory just following the reliable sources. No reliable source or even an unreliable source has been presented stating that Trump being criticized as racist is amongst the most important aspect to his notability. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you look again at the sources in the article (even just reading the titles of the sources will suffice). And I repeat,I have yet to see any sources backing up your fringe theory that Trump's racist statements are "not an important enough aspect". (According to research, they are why he got elected...) zzz (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I have looked at the titles of the sources. What I am stating is not a fringe theory, but it is apparent as no source is stating the opposite. Sources don't state the omission but rather the inclusion of something, and therefore the omission of it proves that it is the the prevailing or mainstream view not fringe theory. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

"The past year of research has made it very clear: Trump won because of racial resentment. Another study produces the same findings we’ve seen over and over again." "... proves that it is the the prevailing or mainstream view ..." - that is your stated opinion, obviously. It is the opposite of what reliable sources state, however. zzz (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I would take Vox as a source with a grain of salt there. PackMecEng (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, they are a reliable source, though. That's what articles are based on. You don't have any backing up your opinion. zzz (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

That Vox article is from their Identities section... aka a blog. Please read WP:RS to understand how reliable sources are determined. Also yes generally Vox is a RS, that does NOT mean they are reliable for everything. PackMecEng (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem, try any of the other sources then. This article can continue to follow the Fox News line, or it can follow reliable sources, which will tell you that Trump's racist statements are "an important aspect", as you are well aware. And no sources contradict that, as you are equally well aware. zzz (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, zzz? Somebody's simple and perfectly defensible opinion becomes a "fringe theory" which "can be ignored"? Let's respect each other and just discuss, OK? --MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion goes like this (please correct me if I'm wrong): There's Fox News and affiliates, which would agree it's just fake news from the "Main Stream Media", and then there's the MSM, otherwise known as Reliable Sources, which undeniably do find the racist statements to be an extremely "important aspect". I can't see how this article's lead section can just ignore them. zzz (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

AFAIK Fox is still considered RS. We have WP:DAILYMAIL, but WP:FOXNEWS is redlinked. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

LOL. Yes, but isn't it about time that gets fixed? They are a GOP/Putin advocacy group, Shep Smith being the one exception. Maybe that's why Fox News is not classified as news, but is part of Fox Entertainment Group. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Could be, and I would probably support "fixing" it, but this is not the place as you know. Fox is probably the biggest player on the right, and the magnitude of that certain shitstorm is probably why nobody cares to raise this. (Three probablys in two sentences is probably excessive.) ―Mandruss ☎ 21:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Undue and not a major aspect of his life. PackMecEng (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose After years of discussion we recently added this to the article, where it occupies a subsection of three paragraphs. Considering how much more there is to say about him in this very full BLP, that one small section does not merit inclusion in the lede. That's based on how we normally choose what goes into the lede, and quite aside from the inflammatory nature of this kind of accusation, but that's also a consideration. --MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Too contentious for lead--Nonztp (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED (yet).- Mr X 🖋 23:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I meant to say that possibly contentious and arguable materials best fit the body rather than the lead--Nonztp (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

But why? Seriously, not a rhetorical question. Sure, it'll be contentious but we should aim for the most NPOV lead, not the least contentious one. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Support a one sentence mention in the lead. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Every president has been accused of being a racist. Every president has been accused of being incompetent. Every president has been accused of being corrupt, an agent of a foreign power, and just plain unpresidential. Really, just saying he is President means he has been accused of all those things and it's simply too contentious to include it here as some sort of overall summary. --DHeyward (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
No objective observer would call the Trump presidency "Washington business as usual"—including Trump and his supporters. Yes, every president has had some of those things said about him, but not nearly to this degree. If anybody ever said Obama was not presidential (I don't recall seeing that), they meant he was not white, and nobody took them seriously including Republican politicians. If anybody ever said Kennedy was not presidential, they meant he was not Protestant, and nobody took them seriously. And so on, and so on. There is WP:FRINGE, and then there is WP:DUE. Your comment is baseless and recklessly hyperbolic. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
You just made my case. There are plenty of voters that didn't think Obama was Presidential including Hillary Clinton in 2008 when she answered that 4 am call. If you dismiss all critics of Obama's fitness for the office as racist, you are essentially making the argument as to why such statements are ridiculous in the lead. Basically you are saying "Trump criticised Obama so he must be racist." It lacks intellectual rigor. I guess you could try adding "racist" to Clinton's lead when she ran against Obama and questioned his ability to be President, based on your reasoning above, but I think most people would see it as crass and shallow. --DHeyward (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not talking about stupid things candidates say during campaigns. I'm talking about reliable sources. And "fitness for office" is not what "presidential" means as I understand it. It's about how comporting oneself with dignity and composure, being a leader not a divider. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Supreme Court Justice Garland agrees with you about being a leader, not a divider. Again those labels are meaningless and uninformative which is "racist", "leader" and "divisive" are not lead-worthy descriptions as they apply to every president (and candidate). --DHeyward (talk) 06:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Uncertain - I'm kind of on the fence about this. On one hand, it has received extensive coverage over a large span of Trump's life. On the other hand, there are quite a few contenders for inclusion in the lead: Trump's wealth, his relationship with the truth, his ramshackle presidential administration, his personality, his television celebrity, his extramarital exploits, his lawsuits, his taste in decor, his grasp of geopolitical affairs, and so on. Obviously, putting all of this in the lead would overwhelm readers. A nuanced subject like racism has to treated carefully and is not particularly well-suited to being summarized. I'm open to being convinced that this is something that must be in the lead, but at the moment, I lean ever so slightly toward opposing this.- Mr X 🖋 23:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I stand by what I said in the open RfC about the general nature of the current lead. We are in the bizarre position of being unable to remedy that largely because we can't decide which of the many lead-worthy controversies are the most lead-worthy. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Racism is surely the most significant in terms of repercussions and connecting with voters, not just a "controversy" like the other examples. zzz (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps. If by connecting with voters, you mean that (many) voters love his racially-provocative remarks, then you are very correct.- Mr X 🖋 23:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

We already include Trump's wealth, his relationship with the truth, his television celebrity; his extramarital exploits should probably be included under that sexual misconduct allegations thing; his lawsuits haven't received a 10th of the coverage, his taste in decor is obviously trivial, his grasp of geopolitical affairs probably not specifically included, his ramshackle presidential administration should probably be included (certainly a large portion of the coverage of his administration is its constant firings etc, actually not even in the body.. addendum: comey thing is there but not really explained well), his personality could be covered in the previous. Agree 100% with mandruss. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose We don't include all the terrible things people have criticized Obama, Bush, or Clinton for in the lead section, and for good reason. It effectively includes personal attacks through using weasel words, which is clearly not allowed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Support Please see my note below. Gandydancer (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose (qualified) - I think Trump's racism is disgusting, and it is certainly a defining characteristic of his entire adult life; however, his racist acts/comments are difficult to articulate without the proper context, and I think it would be impossible to fairly and accurately summarize them in a one or two sentence addition to the lede. With all that said, it might be possible to carefully include something the mentions the "controversial behaviors" the man has, since that term could encompass both sexual misconduct (mentioned in an earlier thread) and racist views and actions. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per Power~enwiki. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose – Most politicians have been heavily criticized for some perceived flaw or other. Trump is not exceptional, except for the amount of coverage and armchair analysis of everything he says. — JFG ^talk 14:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

(Redacted)

Touché

— JFG ^talk 14:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose per above - I'd imagine every politician has one time or another been labelled a racist ... not really something that should be in a BLP lede. –Davey2010^Talk 20:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - The slave-owning US Presidents, don't have such wording in their intros. This smacks of recentism/incumbency observations. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - What, again with this junk ? Off the top of my head

Character assassination fails WP:BLPSTYLE and the vague slur fails WP:LABEL although the vagueness feels more a WP:WEASEL.
Not a BLP event or major theme important to his life so WP:OFFTOPIC. If it is about comments of his Presidency then it goes (unlikely) to that article not this one, and may have to talk about the big blue donkey in the room that such claims are also said to have a partisan/political motivation.
This is unsupported by proposal detail or justification evidence. Asking for carte blanche to just drop a whole section for criticism seems kind of asking for permission to WP:SYNTH together everything in a negative category into portrayal of character trait and major significance. Doing it just on a vague request is unacceptable.

Cheers, Markbassett (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Support. This is without doubt the most important aspect of his political worldview and more importantly the world's perception of his political views. --Tataral (talk) 06:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - This is without doubt the least important aspect of his political worldview and less importantly the world's perception of his political views. --Malerooster (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion: Adding criticized as racist to lead

I believe you are proposing adding this to the lede, Galobtter, where it would not be justified. This is not definitive of Trump. Such aspersions are merely cast by political opponents. Trump is vulnerable to such attacks because he has entered the fray in tendentious areas such as border control and immigration. Much of the world is non-white, thus politically-motivated allegations of racism are always on the table. But I don't think they are definitive of Trump. Bus stop (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes in the lead (clarified proposal) Well no one is saying it is definitive of trump..just one aspect, important enough for the lead. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

"Definitive"? Definitely. RS have described: narcissism, womanizer, greedy, liar, racist, power hungry, ignorant,... All are documented well enough to be worthy of mention in the lead, as long as they are treated properly in the body, and they should be. Just his dubious relationship to truth could make an article of remarkable size. I have over 300 RS on that subject alone, and it's a subject of unquestioned notability. Some consider it the single most defining aspect of his character, second only to his narcissism. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Bus stop please don't get into personal opinions or disparagement. SPECIFICO talk 22:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The lead has no information from the Public profile section. It does mention His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements were controversial or false....as though it is from his past and not a current issue. It's really hard for me to understand how the lead can be considered to be an overview of this man without at least one sentence about his public profile while it continues to be a topic for both domestic and world-wide discussion. Gandydancer (talk) 03:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, the lead of Adolf Hitler doesn't talk about his racism either, just his "racially motivated ideology". Maybe we can compromise with something like that here. E Eng 08:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe, if he murders ~10 million innocent people and gets disavowed by his own country. Doesn't seem very likely. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm simply saying that no one would claim that Hitler was less racist than is Trump, and yet Hitler's lead doesn't use the word racism. Otherwise I don't see what you're getting at: Hitler was more intelligent and less self-absorbed than Trump, was a better public speaker and administrator, surrounded himself with more competent people, had no apparent history of sexual assault, had way more discipline in his torchlight rallies, etc. etc., so comparing Trump to Hitler is absurd. E Eng 14:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. So let's stop comparing Trump's lead to Hitler's lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course, we'll have to revisit that if Trump does indeed end up disavowed by his country. It's early days yet. E Eng 19:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

there is no mention of Donald Trump's denial of saying shithole countries. I think it's just as important as the unsubstantiated allegation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontier teg (talk • contribs) 03:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Frontier teg: The comment is mentioned in Racial views of Donald Trump as well as other articles. I don't know about his denial that he said it, but not every petty political squabble that crosses the TV screen needs to be included in this encyclopedia. The news media have already moved on to other daily controversies. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for closure

I recently closed this informal survey as consensus to exclude and was reverted by Signedzzz claiming no consensus. Because we are both involved, I have now requested a formal closure by an uninvolved editor. — JFG ^talk 00:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 February 2018

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

I would like to request editing Make america great 1 (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. General Ization ^Talk 22:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Awards in the infobox

Should the awards listed in the infobox as they are laid out currently stay or go?

They wouldn't have added a section for awards there if they didn't want them listed, so there was a reason for the madness.

Vjmlhds (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: This edit violated bullet 1 of the editing restrictions laid out at the top of this page, and I'll be reverting it. You've been advised of those restrictions before. Don't do this again. I have no opinion on the content issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure I would call Time Man of the Year an "award." It's a distinction but it does not have a strictly positive connotation to it since many villainous individuals have also gotten the distinction. Hollywood walk of fame is also a bit dubious. It's not like the Oscars or Golden Globes which are clearly awards. It is more an acknowledgement of his fame. The other two "hall of fame" entries probably do meet the definition of awards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that the easiest and quickest way to avoid a long and lengthy discussion is to just link to the article. If someone has a strong case for selecting what they believe are the most appropriate for the infobox then I am sure people will be happy to listen, but it could be a long and tedious consensus making process. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not that big of a deal, just throwing it out there, so I'm not gonna make a fuss over this. Regarding bullet 1, All I did was make 1 reversion. I made the original edit in question, it got changed and I made only 1 reversion. There is a difference between an edit and a reversion. I stayed within the letter of the law at all times. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Someone challenged your material by removing it, and then you reverted that edit. That breaks the editing restrictions noted at the top of this page. Just a few weeks ago, I was blocked for reinserting challenged material, and I wasn't even responsible for adding it in the first place. So no, you have broken the letter of the law and could be sanctioned for it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: I just want it to be clear - any edit made counts as the 1RR? Because I thought a revert was simply undoing an edit and putting back your version, which I only did once. So if a single edit counts as the 1RR, then just make it clear to me, so I'll know going forward. I'm not looking to upset apple carts, I just want to know the boundaries...that's all. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

There is a separate restriction (not 1RR): Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit. - that you violated. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: If I'm guilty of anything, it's that I don't know every little restriction. I'm sorry, but you have to really be in the weeds to know every little clause. I did not intend to violate the consensus clause or any other clause. I thought I was within bounds of the 1RR clause, but if there was an issue, I apologize...not my intent. So going forward, if I make an edit, and it gets changed, just leave it alone - fine. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Even a single edit may be in violation, regardless of whether or not it is a violation of 1RR (or even a reversion at all). The instructions are at the top of this talk page. And you have already been given an alert about this once this year, and you also received the previous version of the alert. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: I'll just make it easy for everybody...I'll just stay as far away from this article as I can, as even though I only mean to edit it with the best of intentions, there's too many landmines here to try to navigate without stepping on one. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

If the first two clearly-stated bullets in the prominent box at the top of this page are really too much for you to handle, that's probably a wise decision. Of course it will mean avoiding all articles that are under the remedies. My preference would be for you to learn the two bullets and continue participating.
You seem to believe that good intentions are enough, but you're mistaken. We also need to observe a bit of fairly inflexible process at articles under these ArbCom remedies. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Vjmlhds - that seems OK, but even better would be to just have a "See more" as other people use. Looking at other presidents, it seems usage varies a bit. Ronald Reagan shows a couple then links to a section of his Bio and never shows his military awards; George H. W. Bush awards are not shown and his military awards are subdued and reduced, and the Medal of Freedom is shown as 'legacy'; Bill Clinton has an honors section, but the template does not link to it; etcetera. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump Violates the Constitutional Rights on Wikipedia

Its not correct to allow information hat deemed inappropriate (racial remarks, discriminating against races or immigrant and others) to Wikipedia users.

Cases like this what makes it no longer use for educational purposes, and more on general purpose on Wikipedia. BusriderSF2015 09:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@BusriderSF2015: I'm sorry, I don't seem to understand. Could you clarify? PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Russian intelligence officials offered to sell the CIA damaging information about Trump

Is this noteworthy? 185.13.106.114 (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

"The Russians"? I didn't know 150 million people were one monolithic bloc - thanks for telling me that. Xerton (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Rephrased, thank you. 185.13.106.114 (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Did the sale in question take place? Has any information been verified which was to be part of that sale? What is the point making posts of this type? This is nothing but unverified rumors, innuendo and supposition. None of it has any place in this article. Xerton (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

In articles about widely covered people news is only noteworthy if all major news networks and newspapers cover it. If you want to edit the article, it is better not to read The Intercept, just watch CNN. TFD (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/politics/us-cyberweapons-russia-trump.html 83.137.1.204 (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Two campaign chairs convicted of child sex trafficking

Has any other president ever had two campaign chairs convicted of child sex trafficking? Trump's are Ralph Shortey and Tim Nolan (politician) . If this is a record, are there any reasons it isn't noteworthy? 185.13.106.114 (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: you wrote, "not convicted, plead guilty, not really related to Trump, also redacted some stuff as can't determine if exactly correct." In the United States system of justice, criminal convictions are secured by guilty pleas and trials. This incident is part of a pattern and practice of ethical lapses which are clearly noteworthy for the main article of any major political figure.

Please observe WP:TALK and refrain from trying to censor facts established by reliable authorities. 185.13.106.114 (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

You need to provide (reliable) sources, otherwise this violates our WP:BLP policy.- Mr X 🖋 16:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Here, I provided sources for you: . I don't believe this material belongs in this biography per WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:NOTSCANDAL. Possibly it could be added to the campaign article.- Mr X 🖋 16:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

How many campaign chairs would need to be convicted of child sex trafficking before you would consider it noteworthy? 185.13.106.114 (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

When there are sources that connect it to trump Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

How is it that you don't see campaign chairs as connected? 185.13.106.114 (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

It's noteworthy, but not for this article. The Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 article would be a better target for this, and of course the articles for each man. Local consensus will determine what to do. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The charges:

Ralph Shortey: In March 22, 2017, Shortey resigned after being charged with three felony counts relating to soliciting prostitution from a male minor. In September 2017, a federal grand jury in Oklahoma City indicted Shortey on four counts of human trafficking and child pornography.
Tim Nolan: In 2017, Nolan was charged with 28 felonies including charges of rape, human trafficking, witness tampering, prostitution, unlawful transaction with a minor and sodomy. There were 22 victims, including eight juveniles. (Convictions followed. See article.)

BullRangifer (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump#Sexual misconduct allegations in the current revision is a subsection of the "2016 presidential campaign" section. Have most of Trump's sexual misconduct allegations been limited to the campaign? Your summary should perhaps point out that Shortey was Trump's Oklahoma campaign chair, as Nolan was in Kentucky. 185.13.106.114 (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

We have to avoid guilt by association. A state campaign chair is not a particularly high office. Any connection between the child sex trafficking and Trump is incidental at best. This has nothing to do with Trump's sexual misconduct allegations.- Mr X 🖋 19:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

State campaign chairs are appointees whose vetting is the responsibility of the candidate, just like all their other top campaign officials. There is no government agency, commission, officials, or any other individuals or groups who are responsible for vetting campaign chairs. Where else can the buck stop? 185.13.106.114 (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Enough. This does not belong here. If it belongs anywhere, it would be Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 and/or articles related to the individuals responsible. Please stop trying to shop it here, because it violates WP:WEIGHT (among other policies). -- Scjessey (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

What is your reasoning for saying it's undue weight? The United States has never had a President with a single state campaign chair convicted of child sex trafficking, let alone two. And again, there are already sex abuse allegation lists in this article's section on the campaign. And the convictions were both for crimes that took place during the campaign. If you have actual reasons or an example from articles on other national leaders supporting your assertion that reporting the convictions is undue weight, please state them. 185.13.106.114 (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I haven't seen any sources suggesting that Trump has any culpability related to this. To claim sufficient weight—especially in this main bio article, which has to cover an entire 70-year life in a fairly small space—is to add our own judgment of culpability, which violates content policy. For comparison, how about showing one or two examples where other presidents' main bio articles mention minor campaign or administration officials who have been convicted of / pled guilty to crimes and got a bit of inconsequential press coverage. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

185.13.106.114, we apply weight in a biography according to how important something is in relation to the entire life of the subject. Disturbing though the matter is, it is inconsequential to the entire life of Donald Trump. As far as reliable sources are concerned, it is a relatively minor matter (it received scant national coverage) concerning some relatively unimportant people on a relatively low rung of the Trump campaign ladder. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I just saw a report suggesting Nolan misrepresented himself as a campaign chair, so I must agree. 83.137.1.204 (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 could be a place to include it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations are not just limited to the campaign, but if Nolan lied about being the state chair, then it's not a potential pattern. 83.137.1.204 (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

This article is a biography of Donald Trump. It is not a repository for mentioning every person or issue related to Donald Trump. It should take a broad, historic view of Trump's life, discussing (concisely!) the most significant aspects per WP:NPOV and WP:PROPORTION, and should not cram in yesterday's headlines just because anonymous users want the information here. If Trump says he likes chocolate ice cream, and I really like chocolate ice cream, that is no good reason for it to be in his biography, even if verifiable. An encyclopedia article is a summation of significant information on a subject, not not everything in the universe tangentially connected to the subject. Items in the news right now may not merit inclusion in the grand scheme of things per Wikipedia:Recentism (digression: it is lamentable that too many articles are constructed primarily from myopic daily news articles). We do NOT add (or remove) material to support a personal narrative, nor to right great wrongs. See also essays on Subjective importance. Mention of the two convicted campaign chairs has merit elsewhere in Wikipedia (indeed, both subjects have their own article), but giving them undue attention in this or any other article is simply pushing a personal agenda. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Books on Trump and religion

Here are some sources which may be relevant to inform sections (here or in sub-articles) on Trump's religion, and/or the role of religion in his election and presidency.

Books

Stephen Strang (2017). God and Donald Trump. Charisma Media. ISBN 978-1-62999-486-4.
Stephen Mansfield (2017). Choosing Donald Trump: God, Anger, Hope, and Why Christian Conservatives Supported Him. Baker Books. ISBN 978-1-4934-1225-9.
David Brody; Scott Lamb (2018). The Faith of Donald J. Trump: A Spiritual Biography. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-274959-8.

Reviews/commentary on the above books

Banks, Adelle M. (January 19, 2018). "Author of books on presidents' faith says Trump misunderstands evangelicals". Religion News Service.
Sullivan, Amy (January 27, 2018). "Millions of Americans Believe God Made Trump President". POLITICO Magazine.
Kilgore, Ed (February 5, 2018). "The Christian Right's Willful Faith in Trump". New York.
"3 new books analyze Trump's faith and his faithful followers". The Salt Lake Tribune. February 8, 2018.

other sources

Percy, Martyn (6 February 2018). "To know Donald Trump's faith is to understand his politics". The Guardian. (Opinion) --Animalparty! (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I was particularly impressed with the table of contents in the Brody and Lamb book. Why wouldn't any objective profile lead off with a chapter entitled, "This Trump Is Your Trump"? Also does Charisma Media publish self-help books? Asking for a friend. 83.137.1.204 (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

You might find answers at the Charisma Media website. Let's limit discussions to article development, per Talk page guidelines. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I was perhaps too obliquely asking whether you thought those sources are reliable. Do you think they are neutral or tending to the hagiographic? Do you think they are suitable sources for the article? If so, in support of what statements? 83.137.1.204 (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

At least one of the source, which is published by HarperCollins, seems suitable. Lorstaking (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Request edit 'racial views'

Delete this line under the racial views category. :

"He continued to maintain this position as late as 2016."

Due to the reference provided not stating that his view had changed. Actually, it rdid the very opposite. Therefore, in reference to the "reference", it is evidently wrong. Ned (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

You are reading the sentence as "He continued to maintain this position until 2016," which is not what it says. It says that's the latest date for which we have verifiability of his position. It would be unverifiable to say that he maintains the position today, and removing the sentence would omit important information. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

OR? Sources needed

Re: ―Mandruss ☎ 02:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

We can't state in WPs voice that Art of the Deal and the Women's March are "most notable" without RS that view represents widespread public consensus.Is there sourcing for this opinion? SPECIFICO talk 19:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Obvious facts don't need detailed sourcing, although I'm sure you can find plenty of sources in the relevant articles. — JFG ^talk 08:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Regardless, it's editorializing.- Mr X 🖋 12:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Onus on you, JFG. Nobody else is "sure" or they'd just help us out with the references. SPECIFICO talk 14:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't add the "notably" qualifiers, I merely restored them. Onus is on you to demonstrate they should be removed. — JFG ^talk 15:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

More information Process discussion, amicably resolved ...

Process discussion, amicably resolved

The following discussion has been closed by JFG. Please do not modify it.

After they're challenged, you have to meet the applicable standard on this article to "marely restore them". SPECIFICO talk 15:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @JFG: Actually, "restoring them" involved re-adding challenged material without discussion. That's a violation of the first point ("consensus required") in the active arbitration remedies listed at the top of this talk page, and thus worthy of sanction according to the letter of the law. And SPECIFICO and MrX are quite right in saying words like "notably" are editorializing, so I support SPECIFICO's original edit. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Challenged edit not challenged material is the wording in the sanction; thusly I don't believe JFG violated the restriction. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed, Scjessey, please review the numerous discussions about what is called "challenging an edit". — JFG ^talk 16:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter:The distinction is irrelevant. SPECIFICO challenged the material by removing instances of "notably", and JFG violated active arbitration remedies by reverting that edit before gaining a consensus to do so. In fact, the only times a reversion without discussion are warranted are in the cases of removing newly added material ("challenging" the material) or obvious vandalism. Every reversion must be carefully considered on pages that fall under the auspices of the remedies detailed above. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC

The distinction is relevant. SPECIFICO did an edit; JFG challenged it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you are getting at. I withdraw my complaint, but continue to support SPECIFICO's edit. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

That is very gallant of you, Scjessey. 12 points! — JFG ^talk 16:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that. Just responding to the evasion of the central point by claiming that the onus is on the editor who removes bad content. SPECIFICO talk 15:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Wasn't suggesting what? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Close

To the point, here is proof that:

The Art of the Deal is more notable than all other Trump books: it sold a million copies,^[1]^[2]^[3] reached number 1 on The New York Times Best Seller list, stayed there for 13 weeks, and altogether held a position on the list for 48 weeks.^[1]. His next-most-popular book, Crippled America, debuted at spot 5 on The New York Times Best Seller list^[4] and stayed on the list for just 13 weeks.^[5] No contest. Finally, a co-authored book, Why We Want You to be Rich, debuted at the first spot^[6] and remained in the top four spots for the next three weeks.^[7]^[8]^[9]
The 2017 Women's March was by far the largest protest against Trump's election: it gathered up to 5 million people worldwide,^[10]^[11] and our own article says it was the largest single-day protest in U.S. history.^[12]

If somebody can exhibit sources claiming that some Trump book is more notable, or some other protest was bigger, I'd be happy to read them and reconsider my position. — JFG ^talk 16:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO's complaint is that you need a preponderance of reliable sources describing these things as notable. If you are inferring their notability, as it appears here, then it's original research. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, those are primary sources about the book and they don't directly support the deprecated article text. The women's march source supports the statement in that article but not the deprecated text that has been removed from this article. SPECIFICO talk 16:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

That's hair-splitting, but I'll bite (text verbatim from journalistic sources, emphasis mine):

The Art of the Deal, Trump’s most famous book, wants you to think it's a guide to, well, "the art of the deal." – Vox, January 19, 2017^[13]
The Women's Marches which took place across the United States to protest Donald Trump's inauguration may have been the largest – and most peaceful – day of protest in US history. Somewhere between 3.3 million and 4.6 million marchers made their presence known across the United States. – The Independent, January 23, 2017^[14]

Settled yet? — JFG ^talk 17:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

This is the last time I'll repeat myself, -- To get consensus, just stick to what I and others have said. That means find RS that support the wording and the meaning of the deprecated text, or change the text to something pertinent but policy-compliant. SPECIFICO talk 17:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I've digged up no less than 14 sources, and I am under no obligation to perform more work to WP:SATISFY you, so I won't respond further to a repeat of your unfounded demands. If you'd like to see an RfC asking "Can the Women's March be mentioned as the most notable protest against Donald Trump?", that would be fun. — JFG ^talk 17:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Do any of these sources say "notably" at all? Because if not, every single one of them is irrelevant. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

More information Sources ...

Sources

[1]
Mayer, Jane (July 25, 2016). "Donald Trump's Ghostwriter Tells All". The New Yorker. Retrieved July 18, 2016.
[2]
"Donald Trump's core business philosophy from his bestselling 1987 book 'The Art of the Deal'". Retrieved 4 July 2017.
[3]
"Donald Trump book royalties to charity? A mixed bag". CBS News. August 11, 2016. Retrieved 14 September 2016.
[4]
Coppins, Mckay (2015). "Donald Trump's New Book To Debut Behind Ben Carson's On New York Times Bestseller List". BuzzFeed. Retrieved August 2, 2017.
[5]
Bukzspan, Daniel (2016). "Make Your Coffee Table Great Again. Here's All of the Books Coming Out About Trump". Fortune. Retrieved August 2, 2017.
[6]
"Paperback Best Sellers: October 29, 2006", The New York Times, October 29, 2006, retrieved June 14, 2017
[7]
"Paperback Best Sellers: November 5, 2006", The New York Times, November 5, 2006, retrieved June 14, 2017
[8]
"Paperback Best Sellers: November 12, 2006", The New York Times, November 12, 2006, retrieved June 14, 2017
[9]
"Paperback Best Sellers: November 19, 2006", The New York Times, November 19, 2006, retrieved June 14, 2017
[10]
Alcindor, Anemona Hartocollis, Yamiche; Chokshi, Niraj (January 21, 2017). "'We're Not Going Away': Huge Crowds for Women's Marches Against Trump". The New York Times. Retrieved January 21, 2017.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
[11]
"At 2.5 million strong, Women's Marches crush expectations". USA Today. January 21, 2017. Retrieved January 21, 2017.
[12]
Broomfield, Matt. "Women's March against Donald Trump is the largest day of protests in US history, say political scientists". Independent. Retrieved January 25, 2017.
[13]
Matthews, Dylan (January 19, 2017). "Zero-sum Trump – What you learn from reading 12 of Donald Trump's books". Vox. Retrieved February 12, 2018.
[14]
Broomfield, Matt (January 23, 2017). "Women's March against Donald Trump is the largest day of protests in US history, say political scientists". The Independent. Retrieved February 12, 2018.

Close

The relevant guideline is WP:EDITORIAL, linked by MrX above, and both cases in question appear to violate its letter. From the reader's perspective (often lost in these disputes), the challenged words add little. That book and that march are the ones we choose to mention per WP:DUE, which conveys their relative significance without the need for added commentary. Support SNUGGUMS's edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, agree, the fact that the art of the deal is mentioned in the lead signifies it as importance without having to write "most notably". As a side note, I dislike that it is a parenthetical - should just be ", including The Art of the Deal," Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything overtly wrong with most notably, but I think "including" is better. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Done Per consensus, I changed "most notably" to "including" in the lead section about The Art of the Deal, and removed the parentheses. Also rephrased the protests section, but kept "notably" there, because the Women's Marches were overwhelmingly the most notable. — JFG ^talk 21:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: You removed "most notably", then replaced it with #1 NY Times bestseller, another way of unnecessarily conveying its relative significance. Never mind that that's too much detail for the lead. Surely you jest? You also left the WP:EDITORIAL for the march, which was not the consensus here. Please, if you're going to do such things, at least don't call it "per consensus". ―Mandruss ☎ 02:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, it was SPECIFICO who added the bestseller bit. That doesn't make it a consensus, after the discussion in this thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Mandruss: Please review the edit history. I replaced "most notably" by "including", as several editors opined that would be the right thing to do. Then SPECIFICO added the #1 New York Times bestseller, saying that would justify why this particular book is mentioned. Afterwards, I linked to the article about the bestseller list instead of the generic "bestseller" article that SPECIFICO had linked to. So please address your criticism to the correct person here, and feel free to revert them. I'm out of 1RR for today.

— JFG ^talk 02:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Done - per consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Apparently I'm not the only one who failed to notice that SNUGGUMS's 10 Feb edit removed "notably" in three places, not two. I see little material difference in the third case, but it wasn't specifically discussed. Is there any objection to finishing the re-instatement of that edit? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Done – I've replaced "notably" with "for example", referring to Ben Carson's nomination. — JFG ^talk 04:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Co-authored

Much worse is the "co-authored" thingy. The WP articles on Trumps books say he is "credited as co-author" on some, which states what we know and not what is disputed. But that excellent improvement has now been removed. While we're here should agree whether that is better than "co-authored". SPECIFICO talk 03:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Didn't we discuss that recently? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

There was discussion about it, but it was kind of filibustered to get the "co-author" bit, even after the excellent independent RS article in the New Yorker. Sometimes these things need to be revisited. SPECIFICO talk 03:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

For reference, discussion was here: Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 72#Ghostwriters in the sky. — JFG ^talk 03:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Right, that discussion reached a (rough) consensus to omit the word "ghostwriter" from the lead, while using it in the body. This appears to be a different question. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Defamation against Alex Jones

You list Alex Jones in a list of white supremacists who support Trump. None of the sources (hitpieces really, you use Vox as a reliable source when its just as biased as Breitbart???) call Jones a white supremacist, one goes off to say Jones "has a loose connection to racists", that statement being bullshit aside. None of your sources have Jones as a white supremacist, even if they did that's libelous af.

Remove him from that section at once. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

He's described as a "far-right radio host", not a white supremacist. zzz (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the IP is referencing that the section header that statement is contained in says "White supremacist". Perhaps that should be changed to "White supremacist and alt-right", because I don't believe Jones has ever been identified as a white supremacist. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Our article on the alt-right pretty much defines it as the same as white supremacism; it was started by a white supremacist. I don't think that is necessary, really Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The section title is "White nationalist support", I don't read any of the following passages as saying "Alex Jones is a white supremacist". That's a bit of a stretch. TheValeyard (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

"During the campaign, Trump was accused of pandering to white supremacists.[398] He gave an interview to far-right radio host Alex Jones, retweeted open racists, and repeatedly refused to condemn David Duke, the Ku Klux Klan or white supremacists, in an interview on CNN's State of the Union, saying that he would first need to "do research" because he knew nothing about Duke or white supremacists." You group Jones with David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan in a single sentence. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe that is called confirmation bias. White supremacist pandering (one), sitdown with an alt-right shock jock (two), repeating racist screeds on social media (three), did not condemn a KKK leader (four). All are similar, but not the same, Trump is being criticized for running the entire gamut of pandering to once-fringe and shadowy voices. TheValeyard (talk) 04:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the language. We don't explicitly call Alex Jones a white supremacist, even though he is linked to white supremacy by his belief in white genocide and promotion of white supremacists on Infowars and The Alex Jones Show. I'm disappointed this has been removed. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm unable to find any sources linking him to white supremacism, specifically, and only few or white nationalism. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

He's linked to white supremacy, even if he isn't explicitly a white supremacist. For example:

"Heidi Beirich, director of the SPLC's intelligence project, calls Jones a gateway drug for white supremacy, though she says he does not espouse explicitly racist views. Many white supremacist leaders tracked by the center have written that Jones' broadcasts open their minds to new thinking as they adopted their racist philosophy, Beirich says." (source)

-- Scjessey (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Related move request

WaPo: New affair with nondisclosure reported

School shooting

Propose inclusion of affairs

"Trump is alleged to have had an extramarital affair with pornographic actress Stormy Daniels in 2006,^[1] Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, denied the existence of an affair between Trump and Daniels,^[2] but later acknowledged paying Daniels $130,000 of his own money.^[3]

Trump is also alleged to have had another affair with Playboy model Karen McDougal from 2006 to 2007, which the White House has denied.^[4]^[5] The alleged affairs with Daniels and McDouglas are stated to have taken place months after Trump's third wife Melania had given birth to their son Barron."^[2]^[5]

I propose including the above relevant, notable, cited material for this page. If more sources are needed, they can be easily provided. The personal life of Donald Trump is discussed on Donald Trump, I see no other more appropriate place to include this. starship.paint ~ KO 04:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

... and Melania Trump's page as well. She was allegedly cheated on. starship.paint ~ KO 01:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

References

[1]
Rothfeld, Michael; Palazzolo, Joe (January 12, 2018). "Trump Lawyer Arranged $130,000 Payment for Adult-Film Star's Silence". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved January 14, 2018.
[2]
"'In Touch' Explosive Interview With Stormy Daniels: Donald Trump Cheated on Melania With Me". In Touch Weekly. January 17, 2018. Retrieved January 17, 2018.
[3]
Pearson, Jake; Horwitz, Jeff (February 14, 2018). "Porn star who alleged Trump affair: I can now tell my story". Associated Press.
[4]
Palazzolo, Joe; Rothfeld, Michael; Alpert, Lukas (November 4, 2016). "National Enquirer Shielded Donald Trump From Playboy Model's Affair Allegation". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 17 February 2018.
[5]
Farrow, Ronan (February 16, 2018). "Donald Trump, the Playboy Model Karen McDougal, and a System for Concealing Infidelity". The New Yorker. Retrieved February 16, 2018.

Oppose it's well-sourced enough to include somewhere on Wikipedia (and I see you've added it on Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2018 Q1), but I don't see enough facts to include it in this article just yet. Specifically, both your paragraphs are "alleged". I do think there's a good chance enough will come out by the end of the month for me to change my opinion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: yes, they are alleged, but so are Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations because Trump denies everything negative as "fake news". That didn't stop us from writing the article because of the extensive coverage ensuring notability. As for facts alleging the affairs, they are more in Stormy Daniels#Alleged affair with Donald Trump and Karen McDougal#Alleged affair with Donald Trump, I didn't include them for brevity because this is the main article on Trump. In Touch says Daniels passed a polygraph. At least three people have collaborated Daniels' story - a friend, ex-husband, and a manager. In 2009 Daniels also related the story to a political consultant. McDougal's friends have also been told of the affair. Also if the $130,000 for Daniels isn't smoking enough, I don't know what is. starship.paint ~ KO 05:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

True that the picture changed significantly when the lawyer acknowledged the payment. If one can make $130,000 by threatening to go public with false claims against Trump, where do I file my claim? ―Mandruss ☎ 05:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I forgot to mention fellow pornographic actress Alana Evans has also collaborated the story (she turned down Trump and Daniels' invitation to join them in a hotel room, and Daniels went) starship.paint ~ KO 08:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose for now. Not yet -- WP:NOTTABLOID and WP:NOTNEWS, plus this is WP:BLP, so write conservatively and on what really mattered to his life. It seems more in the scope of the article Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations anyway. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Daniels has already been rejected by clear consensus at that article, as not an allegation of sexual misconduct. Since you were part of that consensus, it seems your position has changed. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@Markbassett: you seem to have confused marital misconduct with sexual misconduct, in a reversion of your earlier stance as pointed out above. I hope you're not just hoping this content stays off the pages (not appropriate here, not appropriate there) starship.paint ~ KO 06:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Markbassett - pointing out that part of WP:BLP is WP:PUBLICFIGURE If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. I believe Trump is the most public figure in the world. I will also point out that these affairs are relevant when Trump's political party the GOP has "marriage" as a top priority for its values. starship.paint ~ KO 06:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

This isn't so much about whether it should be included at Wikipedia, of course it should, but where. It's more appropriate at the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations article.

BTW, I just noticed a violation of our WP:SPINOFF guideline. There you'll see that our section Donald Trump#Sexual misconduct allegations is not a proper summary of the two subarticles it's supposed to cover. It's mostly about the Hollywood Access tape. Instead it should cover the same matter which the leads of those two articles cover. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a good point. If that section is re-written (and moved out of the 2016 campaign section to a personal life section), a one-sentence mention of these accusations would be justified today IMO. Once again, in a month's time, there will likely be more facts and secondary coverage that will allow for more details here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose per Markbassett. Codyorb (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Partial support - I support the concept, but not the wording. I would make it a one-sentence summary, which I would insert in the "family" subsection like this: "...and gave birth to a son, Barron. Trump is alleged to have had extramarital affairs with pornographic actress Stormy Daniels in 2006, and Playboy model Karen McDougal from 2006 to 2007. Melania became First Lady of the United States..." I would also prefer to see that following sentence folded into the next paragraph, because we have a weird pairing of "upon his inauguration" constructs slammed together. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

******** countries

Presidential greatness

Concerning this reversion by PackMecEng. Although it is indeed an NYT opinion piece, it is still a respected survey that has been done off and on since 1962 (previously appearing in other media outlets like the Washington Post and Life magazine, for example). I don't think it should be so quickly dismissed as "undue" since it is definitely part of Trump's political image. I think it probably warrants a little extra discussion, at least. We have a similar survey noted in Barack Obama's article (see Barack Obama#Legacy), so perhaps it is something to consider when Trump leaves office? Anyway, let's kick it around a wee bit, eh? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Seems OK to include now -- more substantive than newsy public opinion polls that we rightly or wrongly cite in many articles. I think if he came in within the middle 80% that would be ho-hum, but it's not that often that a sitting president achieves either the top or bottom 10% so fast. SPECIFICO talk 19:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I would have less of an UNDUE problem with it in the presidency article. Here, I'd like to see like five solid sources to pass WEIGHT. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

It could be useful to have some precisish guideline/suggestions to help determine due weight. Just because something is recent doesn't mean that is is necessarily undue, but Trump does have substantial coverage. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

It is an opinion piece on "Presidential Greatness" by American Political Science Association which from what I can tell is not reliable on their own. It comes off as really shaky and too subjective. PackMecEng (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The survey is not an opinion piece, but the NYT article it was presented in was. I really don't see where you are getting the "shaky" and "too subjective" vibe. The rigorous survey (primary source) is conducted by polling a group of scholars in presidential politics, and it is compiled by respected political science professors at two separate universities. Moreover, the article has now received attention in many other secondary reliable sources (example) which compare it to previous surveys of scholars (including the previous version of this one). Other articles compare the results of this survey with polls of public opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I should of been more clear, when I said opinion piece I was referring to the NYT article that was used. I still have concerns over the APSA, they can't even describe themselves correctly on their twitter own account, they have been around a while but have not been covered much over all. It is also not a very descriptive poll, what the heck is presidential greatness? Just does not add value in my opinion. PackMecEng (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

APSA is legit. Just like other long-time professional and scholarly organizations. Not upstart, POV or fringey. SPECIFICO talk 21:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the survey PDF provided by Scjessey, that was 166 respondents with 95 Democrat, 21 Republican, and 45 Independent. That doesn't sound right. PackMecEng (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah way over sampled Democrats and under sampled Republicants. Right now the country breaks up to 31% Democrats, 24% Republican, and 42% independent. So with 166 replies should of been 51.46 Democrat, 39.84 Republican, and 69.72 Independent of there abouts, not even close to the poll they did. PackMecEng (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Believe it or not, Political Science is not political. It's like counting Republican doctors in a medical poll for Obamacare or a climate scientists in a poll about air pollution. SPECIFICO talk

If we are going to give weight to a poll, that poll should probably reflect the actual population. Though I suppose we could go with "A majority Democrat poll says Trump isn't very great". But that probably isn't very encyclopedic. PackMecEng (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

It reflects the population of the APSA, that's all. We're not saying it was brought down by Moses or something. SPECIFICO talk 23:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

As with most scientific organizations and scientists, Republicans are poorly represented, which is a reflection of the well-documented fact that liberals are generally better educated than conservatives. That's life. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah they should be more inclusive and tolerant of other ideas. But we are getting into forum territory here. PackMecEng (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Or that, ever since Nixon's Southern Strategy, there are fewer educated people who choose to identify as Republicans. So most academic organizations will have fewer elephants than donkeys. I think this is the converse of what you said. Both may be true. This isn't forum stuff -- it's just a reason not to discredit the APSA, which is an open mainstream scientific organization. SPECIFICO talk 23:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I still contend a bias poll on a nebulous topic is undue for his main BLP. JFG makes a good point that it might be a better fit for his presidency article. Would that work for you? PackMecEng (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

A better fit for Presidency of Donald Trump indeed. — JFG ^talk 22:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

’’’Find another RS’’’, one that is not an opinion piece. Frankly, APSA comes off as being a bit early to be responsible scholarship, and I think this is verging on RECENTISM as well as question of UNDUE, but think showing some other RS taking note independent of the opinion piece would be a needed support. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/19/politics/trump-lincoln-presidential-greatness-survey/index.html -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

FWIW - yes - seems the earlier edit, with several relevant WP:RS references,^[1]^[2]^[3] may now be sufficient for adding to the Donald Trump and/or Presidency of Donald Trump articles - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Done - BRIEF Followup - added relevant text/refs to the following => "Presidency of Donald Trump#Approval ratings" article/secton - seems to be an ok section but ok with me to move to some better location in the article of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

References

[1]
Rottinghaus, Brandon; Vaughn, Justin S. (February 2018). "Official Results of the 2018 Presidents & Executive Politics Presidential Greatness Survey - PDF" (PDF). Boise State University. Retrieved February 20, 2018.
[2]
Rottinghaus, Brandon; Vaughn, Justn S. (February 19, 2018). "How Does Trump Stack Up Against the Best — and Worst — Presidents?". The New York Times. Retrieved February 19, 2018.
[3]
Dunn, Andrew (February 19, 2018). "Political scientists rank Trump last, Lincoln first in presidential greatness survey". CNN. Retrieved February 19, 2018.

Position on women's rights

Archive links

Unanimous opposition. Added a note to consensus list, as item #25. — JFG ^talk 01:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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

I'd like to avoid this, if possible:

Discussion should be done here, not in the edit summaries of a reversion war. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose mass-adds of archive links as a cost-benefit fail.
Yes, it really does matter when it takes 10 seconds to download a single page (longer, on some connections). This is a 35% increase in this article's file size, which means a 35% increase in download time for an already-large article.
Yes, it really does matter when ~80% of your edit window is occupied by citation templates.
Find acceptable solutions to both of those problems and I will withdraw my opposition.
(Scjessey is 100% correct as to edit warring and I wish admins would use the discretion given them by the discretionary sanctions in effect at this article. There is no excuse for that behavior.) ―Mandruss ☎ 16:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose this practice at Wikipedia. Period. When a link is dead, then do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose archiving dead links until they are... well... actually dead! -- Scjessey (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose – In addition to bloating article size and making editing even more painful than normal, mass archiving drowns out citations that actually require archiving. The bot option allowing automated archival f everything should be retired. — JFG ^talk 16:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per comment in previous thread and per above (perhaps add this to the consensus list..) Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I was unaware of the previous discussion in Archive 69, but I'm happy to see I'm not on my own here in opposing this. Archiving live links on such a massive scale with slow down load times for the page without any benefit. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment All the links should be archived, but they don't need to be added to the article until they are actually dead. Most sources will get archived on their own, but some don't get archived unless requested. Unfortunately from what I've seen with the bot, it either archives and adds links into every source, or it will only adds into deadlinks and does nothing for the rest(not even tell Wayback to create an archive for a source with none). If the source is never archived, waiting until it is actually dead ends up in the source being lost completely. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Archive.org is a great repository for archived links. I'm often able to find an archived version of a dead link there. If not, in the case of Trump, it's highly likely a substitute source can be found for whatever it is in the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I usually can always find an archives with it, I have the quicklink bookmark in my tool bar. Sometimes, particularly with sources from a long time ago, the source will either just never have been archived, or it will have an archived version which is a "cant find page" template for the domain. Usually happens when there is an rework of the website, and all old links start return that error page, and those were the only versions of it archived. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose I oppose this practice in this article for the time being. It is acceptable for other articles on a case by case basis. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose All this does is add bulk to the already huge article. BTW this edit is also being discussed at AN, and this type of edit has been discussed in general before, without any real consensus being reached. But when it is done to a huge, fairly recent article which does not really have a dead-link problem, I think it causes more harm than good. --MelanieN (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Image of a newspaper OpEd

Please help me change this

Help

Trump as a gun owner

Greek symbols in infobox

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2018

Source for Russia-related stuff

Related AfD may be of interest

Forbes

Forbes: Donald Trump’s wealth has fallen for second year running

Donald Trump has tumbled more than 200 places in the world ranking of billionaires as a result of his fortune shrinking by more than $400m (£287m) to $3.1bn over the past year.

According to Forbes magazine’s annual ranking of the world’s wealthiest people, the US President slipped from 544th richest last year to 766th this year. It is the second year running that Trump’s fortune has dwindled.

Can someone please update all mentions of his wealth? I can't do it myself due to edit protection. Azure94 (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

As we mention Forbes data for at least 2015, 2016, and 2017, I'm not sure whether we need to replace 2017 with the new data or keep 2017 and add 2018. If the latter, I think we're approaching the point where a table would work better than prose. It's the same data points every year. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Consensus is to use the most recent yearly Forbes valuation in the lead and infobox. We can keep the historical data at campaign time in the "Wealth" section, because the mismatch between various estimates and Trump's own claims was widely discussed at the time. I don't see the benefit to keep a tally of all yearly changes. — JFG ^talk 02:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Besides, no one really knows. O3000 (talk) 02:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it best to use the most updated data we have, to keep the article as current as possible. Forbes now has him at $3.1B. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Updated as per prior consensus. Once a year is enough. O3000 (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I finished the Forbes updates and copy edited the consensus list. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Suggests this info is in too many places. It's not like this article needs padding.:) O3000 (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

New Billionaires list

Attached to existing discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Forbes came out with their 2018 Billionaires list, and they have Trump ranked at #776 with a net worth of $3.1B.

I just want to make sure that everything is up to snuff before I add it, because I don't want people getting up in arms about consensus and whatnot.

Should be a no-brainer to make the appropriate adjustment to the article, but I just want to be safe before doing so.

Vjmlhds (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

It is being discussed right above in the Forbes section. PackMecEng (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Employee bonuses

Scjessey, I'm not interested in getting bogged down in extensive discussions on this talk page, but this edit pretty clearly failed verification and violates the "consensus required" arbitration remedy. I suggest you self-revert. As I mentioned in my edit summary, I wouldn't be at all surprised if these bonuses were attributed to low unemployment, but that's not what the source says. You also blew through my other edit to fix the WP:WEASEL problem as well. And you marked your revert as minor to boot. Not cool. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: My edit challenged your removal of cited material. No violation or self-revert required. The rollback was using Twinkle, and it most certainly shouldn't have been marked as "minor" (no idea why it did that). I quoted the relevant text of the source in the edit summary, and the "weasel" word is contained in the text also. There are other articles. Even the Department of Labor notes the connection. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

You are not actually reading the sources. The sources do not attribute the bonuses to low unemployment. Yes unemployment is low, that's not in dispute, but where in these sources does it say the bonuses are attributable to them? And I don't know what you mean when you say the "'weasel' word is contained in the text also." The BBC News source says, "Opponents of the overhaul have dismissed the announcements as little more than publicity stunts." I simply reflected the source's attribution to make clear who was lodging the criticisms. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: I got confused between the two different sources, so your attribution edit was fine, but the CNN article provides adequate sourcing for the stuff you removed. Continuing to insist I violated an ArbCom remedy (including templating me on my talk page) is unacceptable. You removed cited material and its reference, and I challenged that removal with a reversion. No violation there. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Scjessey, Thanks for that at least. Now, for the rest, please cut/paste here specifically what source language you are relying on for your contention that the CNN article provides adequate sourcing for the following content: "the pay increases have been attributed to unemployment." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I quoted the source language in my edit summary at the time. Now I read it again, I agree the language suggests the connection, rather than outright stating it is the case. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

If the source doesn't say something explicitly, then neither can we. That's Wikipedia policy - see WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Even aside from that, It's odd that you refuse to lay out the relevant source language here so it can be discussed in the light of day. Here it is:

Also, with unemployment at a historically low 4.1%, many companies are having trouble hiring. The job market is so tight that many companies increasingly will be forced to raise pay and offer better benefits to entice job candidates and keep current workers from leaving.

I fail to see how this excerpt even "suggests" that the pay increases alleged to be spurred by the tax bill were in fact attributed to low unemployment. The inference can be made by a dot-connecting reader, but it's not made by the source. The source simply lays out some relevant economic forces, some of which are consistent with employees receiving increased benefits. There's nothing there about the pay increases, let alone what they were attributed to. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I think this is resolved by my recent edit. I found some sources that were more explicit. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Tariffs

Too pointy?

I've been considering it for a while, and I can see how it might be kinda pointy to go through and try to deal with some of the massive overlinkage here, it just looks really ugly to my eyes. Thoughts? Gabriel syme (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

You think the article has too many blue links? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Most articles do, considering that most editors apply the following rule: If it can be linked, link it. Trim all you like with my blessing, Gabriel. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Let's not go overboard though. The links are there for a reason, after all. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK is the relevant guideline, FYI. In short, useful links helpful to the understanding of the article should not be drowned out by unnecessary or duplicate ones. The lede looks like it's overlinked for sure, and the body does not look as bad but could surely still benefit from a review. I wouldn't worry about that being considered "disruptive to make a point", it's more like routine MOS quality control. Swarm ♠ 02:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: I don't blame him for being cautious. When you improve anything too much too quickly, somebody is guaranteed to yell "disruption!", and the community often sides with them because avoiding upsetting editors is more important than improving the encyclopedia per MOS. I've avoided widespread removal of MOS:EGG vios for exactly the same reason, and the same goes for widespread changes per the clarified MOS:JOBTITLES. In the end, the community gives very low weight to MOS. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I've removed some links from the lead Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate all the input, I'm going to take a look through now and see what seems reasonable. I get that it's a long article, so a few instances of duplicate links are probably in order. Unrelated question, what's the functional difference between indenting and using bullets on a talk page? Thanks again. Gabriel syme (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter and Gabriel syme: Many thanks for your excellent WP:Gnome work on tackling overlinkage. I have taken the liberty to restore a few links which may not be obvious to non-American readers, and made a few tweaks here and there. — JFG ^talk 01:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: Guilty as charged! Thanks for looking it over, I need to keep non-American readers more in mind definitely. I'll probably come back in a couple days and work on the overlinkage in the second half of the article, but otherwise this gnome is going to find other corners to sweep. Gabriel syme (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Was just wondering - isn't the link under 'See Also' to list of honors and awards unnecessary and redundant? It's linked in the navbox along with other lists. 21:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:93E9:4700:28DC:373A:BBD3:6E09 (talk)

Thanks for pointing that out, but navboxs don't show on mobile currently so it is still useful. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Survey: Adding criticized as racist to lead

Discussion: Adding criticized as racist to lead

Request for closure

Co-authored

New Billionaires list

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks