Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 149

Archive 145

←

Archive 147

Archive 148

Archive 149

Archive 150

Archive 151

→

Archive 155

As a domestic terrorist

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.

---

Trump has been labeled as a domestic terrorist by a dozen or so high ranking, current and former law enforcement and US government employees. For example, Republican former US deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage described him as a domestic terrorist in 2021, while more recently, Democrat Juliette Kayyem, formerly of the United States Department of Homeland Security, also referred to Trump in this way. Should this be covered in this biography? Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposed addition

The Guardian and ABC News have identified more than 50 "criminal cases where Trump was invoked in direct connection with violent acts, threats of violence or allegations of assault." According to journalist Mark Follman, Donald Trump is considered a "terrorist leader" by national security experts. In addition to these threats, Reuters has documented 102 threats of death or violence received by more than 40 election officials, workers and their relatives in eight of the most contested battleground states in the 2020 US presidential contest."

References

Comments

• absolutely not per MOS:TERRORIST Anon0098 (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  Please read the MOS again: "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Viriditas (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yes exactly. An example of this would be Ted Kaczynski, where everyone agrees he is a terrorist. Trump is not “widely” described as a domestic terrorist by RSs. Anon0098 (talk) 03:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  Are you sure about that? Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  Feel free to provide a large number of reliable sources using the verbatim verbiage “terrorist” Anon0098 (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  They may not use terrorist verbatim, but there's hundreds of RS that describe how Trump has one way or another used violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. AKA the definition of terrorism. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think we can work it that way, FD. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  I already have these sources collected in my user space. The thing is, I know you will just move the goalposts each and every time and play the no true Scotsman card. So let’s cut to the chase: what criteria will you accept to represent the evidence that Donald Trump is, according to Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to NBC’s Meet the Press, "inspiring and incentivizing and inciting…domestic terrorism". This is not a fringe opinion. It is the opinion of the reality-based community. Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  Saying he is "inspiring and incentivizing and inciting…domestic terrorism" is NOT the same thing as saying he "is a terrorist". Personally I'd be fine with the article using that Whitmer quote, and putting it in the context of the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot, the January 6 United States Capitol attack, and the Unite the Right rally to show how his words and actions have inspired others to commit terrorist acts, but I think we need to be EXTREMELY careful about saying he "is a terrorist" in Wiki voice. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 04:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  That’s one of hundreds of quotes about Trump as a domestic terrorist, so I don’t think it’s fair to pick on it. Here’s another one: "For me it started in Charlottesville when he said there were good people on both sides of the issue," Mr Armitage said, referring to clashes at a white supremacist rally in 2017 in which a counter-protester was killed. "There was violence at those rallies and it's continued. "And most recently when the President was firing up the crowd, and previously saying, 'it's going to be a wild day', then urging them to march on the Capitol. "All those things lead me to believe that he's a domestic terrorist." Source. Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  "Saying he is "inspiring and incentivizing and inciting…domestic terrorism" is NOT the same thing as saying he "is a terrorist". " So what in the hell do you think it means? If you tell people to go do terroristic things and they do, then YOU ARE A TERRORIST. End of discussion. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• NO, per wp:blp we can't accuse someone of a serious crime. Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  Under current US law, domestic terrorism itself has no criminal penalties, therefore, it is not classified as a crime. See: Schifrin, Nick. (February 4, 2021). "What consequences have rioters faced for the Capitol attack?". PBS NewsHour. Archived from the original on 2021-02-05. Quote from Jane Holl Lute: "There is a definition of domestic terrorism, but, perhaps surprisingly to many of us, it doesn't carry any criminal penalties. And so if you're charging individuals who are intent on violence, law enforcement is having to use, as you say, other statutes and other provisions." Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  It may not be a crime in and of itself it is a serious accusation of wrongdoing that will involve crimes. In addition, most of that text is not about Trump, it is about other people using his name. This, therefore, is a violation of BLP, and undue. We can't imply he has orchestrated a terrorist campaign. Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  You’re confused. I never said that specific source was about Trump, I said it was about the classification of domestic terrorism as a crime. Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Absolutely not per WP:TERRORIST. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 00:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  As originally addressed, the MOS does not prohibit the use of the word, but actually allows for it in the way I’m using it: in other words, the term is "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Calling Trump a domestic terrorist meets this requirement. Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  It's not widely used by reliable sources. Only one source you've offered does so (Mother Jones), and it has sketchy reliability in regards to politics at WP:RSP. You would need many, many, many sources describing him as such to even put in as attributed, much less in WIKIVOICE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  Everything covered by Mother Jones has been covered by other sources. Calling Trump a domestic terrorist meets this requirement. For example, Juliette Kayyem, former assistant secretary of Homeland Security, said Trump is the "operational leader of this domestic terrorism effort" in the US who uses "stochastic terrorism" as a primary tactic. Kori Schake, formerly of the National Security Council and State Department during the Bush admin, calls Trump "an arsonist of radicalization". Elizabeth Neumann, former DHS assistant secretary in the area of counterterrorism and threat prevention, said "language from campaign materials and Trump’s extemporaneous speeches at rallies have been used as justification for acts of violence". These quotes are from 2020, before Trump began to overtly promote QAnon as he does today, a movement which was designated as a domestic terrorist threat by the FBI in 2019. None of this material is unique to Mother Jones, nor does it depend on it or require it. In other words, Mother Jones is entirely irrelevant to this argument and discussion. Viriditas (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  None of those people are reliable sources. If this is not unique to Mother Jones then how about you provide the plethora of reliable sources that label Trump as a terrorist. That WP:ONUS is on you. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, you can’t have it both ways. You questioned the reliability of a source that claimed "Donald Trump is considered a 'terrorist leader' by national security experts". I then provided a shortlist of those experts, showing that the claim was supported. Like I said, objections to this material will consist solely of moving the goalposts and no true Scotsman appeals. The honest truth is that it won’t matter how many sources I provide, there is no source you will accept. Just trying to save you some time. Viriditas (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  Those people likely qualify as subject-matter experts, i.e. they're reliable sources. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  A subject matter expert is not the same thing as a reliable source. Levivich (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  Reliable sources have reported that the Proud Boys were designated as terrorist groups by Canada and New Zealand, while the US has declined to do so. Wikipedia reports this, just as we report that Trump has been designated a domestic terrorist leader by x and y. For example, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC News) reported that Richard Armitage called Donald Trump a domestic terrorist. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  Per WP:V: "sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." ––FormalDude (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'd argue that is the case for Juliette Kayyem, someone who appears to be an academic in that field, but if you were going to do it that way, the opinion should be directly attributed to her as an academic. If you were talking about including this with a bunch of academic opinions (journal articles, etc) listing him as such, I don't think anyone would disagree. But if this is included, even with consensus to do so here, expect constant pushback to referring to Trump as a domestic terrorist using a source that even RSP describes as Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source.

  As a matter of fact, RSP even suggests exactly what I am suggesting here, its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed. FrederalBacon (talk) 06:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'd support direct attribution to Juliette Kayyem. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - By the way, we don't even describe Osama bin Laden as a terrorist in WP:WIKIVOICE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  In other words, other things exist. Viriditas (talk) Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's a strawman as nobody here is suggesting we label Trump a terrorist in wiki voice. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  It's not a strawman. This discussion is about Trump being labeled/described as a domestic terrorist. I'm saying it would be very inappropriate to do so in WIKIVOICE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 22:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  It's important to be precise and specific in one's posts here. Otherwise it becomes like the telephone game where next thing, somebody will read your words and think that OP proposed labeling him a terrorist in Wikivoice. It also fails to help us evaluate whether 1) the opinion is widely held, and 2) whether it's meaningful to label him like that. SPECIFICO talk 23:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  Either you don't know what wikivoice is or you don't know what this proposal is, because the suggested text that describes him as a terrorist is directly attributed. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  It doesn’t matter that much anyway because it’s inappropriate attributed or not. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 16:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  That is no substitute for a well-reasoned argument that addresses the proposal under discussion. Arguments are not portable from one issue to a different issue. SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  The argument by myself and others is that no evidence has been presented that Trump is widely described as a terrorist in reliable sources. Hence, it’s inappropriate to describe, whether it be attributed or not, that Trump is a domestic terrorist in this article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 16:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  +1 Please, no strawman arguments here. SPECIFICO talk 13:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  And we have one person's view he is a terrorist, which violates wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  We have many people who view Trump as a terrorist. United States Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas considers domestic extremism the top threat to the United States. This threat is coming from Donald Trump and his supporters. Former Trump administration official Miles Taylor said that the Republican Party represents the "number one national security threat" to the United States, a greater threat than terrorist groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda. This is not one person's view. This is the mainstream, establishment view on the national security threat level to the US. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  It seems like original research to be connecting those things: domestic extremism is top threat; the threat is coming from the Trump crowd. I would want to see a few reliable sources that have done that research, and explicitly say Trump is a terrorist. _signed, Willondon (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  This so-called "original research" is literally the conclusion of every major national security analysis since the Jan 6 insurrection and attempted coup. Viriditas (talk) 00:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• I think this may be a bridge too far right now. Certainly he and the other Jan 6 instigators are heading in the direction of being regarded as such, but we're not there yet. Zaathras (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
• lol no, per "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources" as pointed out by others. The evidence of use presented here is far below "widely used by reliable sources". That phrase doesn't mean "a dozen people's opinion as reported by a journalist". Show me three history books, by historians, where the historian calls Trump a "terrorist" in the historian's own voice... and even then it wouldn't be widely. Show me ten such examples, and then we'll talk. The term may be applicable in my opinion or yours, but definitely not for wikivoice WP:NPOV. Levivich (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  How about you provide just one recent RS that stops short of describing Trump as a terrorist? Because, as said above, it is the conclusion of every major national security analysis since January 2021. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  [1] is about substantial new details about former President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to reverse the outcome of the 2020 election but it doesn't call him a terrorist. Levivich (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  I know you only asked for one, but here are three more

  • Crotty, William (2021-06-28). The Presidential Election of 2020: Donald Trump and the Crisis of Democracy. Lexington Books. ISBN 978-1-7936-2556-4.
  • Trautman, Lawrence J. (2021-03-19). "Democracy at Risk: Domestic Terrorism and Attack on the U.S. Capitol". Seattle University Law Review. 45 (4). doi:10.2139/ssrn.3808365.
  • Rapoport, David C. (2021-07-04). "The Capitol Attack and the 5th Terrorism Wave". Terrorism and Political Violence. 33 (5): 912–916. doi:10.1080/09546553.2021.1932338. ISSN 0954-6553.

  All refer to the attack as domestic terrorism; none refer to Trump as a terrorist. Levivich (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  FormalDude, the onus is on the person making the claim to bring forth the evidence. Not the other way around. I know you know that. It [Trump being a terrorist] is the conclusion of every major national security analysis since January 2021—link it, then. Provide good sources. I'm not saying that statement isn't true, but, rather, the lack of good, quality sourcing by the people wanting to make the change, and then the shifting of the burden of actualy finding that evidence (which, apparently, is plentiful enough that it deserves coverage in this article, and which also is not being linked for whatever reason despite the fact that it is, apparently, as I already said, plentiful enough to deserve coverage in this article) onto others, just doesn't seem fair.

  The few sources linked have been called into question, and if it is so "widely used", I'm sure a simple Google Scholar or NYT search will provide us with more evidence. Enough to say that it is "widely used", however? We will have to wait and see. However, no one here can tell me that, based on the information that has been provided, there is enough info to even come close to satisfying the "widely used" requirement of MOS:TERRORIST. Right? Am I wrong? Cessaune (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Levivich, "lol no" was pretty much my reaction too, per MOS:TERRORIST, there is no way that term is used widely enough. And even then, if you wanted to include it, I wouldn't support the weasel words "national security experts". That opinion needs to be attributed to who it comes from. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  The claim that Trump is considered a domestic terrorist is now so widespread and well known that CPAC uses it as an unofficial rallying cry at their conference ("We are all domestic terrorists"). And I already attributed the national security experts by name up above. Did you even read this discussion? Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'd recommend being a little less condescending. Might make others more willing to see your point. Let's examine your reference there.

  after all, one of CPAC’s afternoon panels was titled “We Are All Domestic Terrorists.” One of its participants, Texas state board of education candidate Julie Pickren of Houston, began by claiming the title was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. “Nobody in this room is a domestic terrorist,” she assured the thousand or so right-wing activists in the Hilton Anatole’s Trinity Ballroom.

  How in the hell is that an "unofficial rallying cry"? It was a joke (a terrible joke doesn't stop being a joke just because it lands flat) title for a panel. Not a rallying cry, are you seriously trying to use that to back up your claim? If that's the strength of the sourcing, I'm not sure you're going to convince many. You didn't convince me. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  Also, in reference to the named security experts, yes, you did, but in the proposed addition to the article, you used the phrase According to journalist Mark Follman, Donald Trump is considered a "terrorist leader" by national security experts

  The attribution goes to the journalist, not the named security experts. So, yes, I did read it, and I still think the phrase "national security experts" is a weasel word that should be avoided with direct attribution, if this is used. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, Viriditas, many reliable sources do say that. However, to call Trump a terrorist, according to MOS:TERRORIST, we have to look at it with a broader eye.

  First of all, we need to make sure... that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy. (emphasis mine)

  Second, none of the sources you gave directly label Trump as a 'terrorist', acknowledging that people spinning off of the articles may label Trump as a terrorist and they may very well be qualified.

  Third, is it fair to label him as a terrorist? Do we have enough reliable sources agreeing with that statement?

  Fourth, 'terrorist' is the definition of a word with a negative connotation. Would a different word be more appropriate?

  Keep in mind that the absolute most we can say is something along the lines of 'he has been characterized as a terrorist', if we say anything. Cessaune (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• absolutely not WP:VOICE & MOS:TERRORIST Cover it. I second that it would be extremely inappropriate and misleading to readers if you used wiki-voice and labeled Trump a domestic terrorist. Eruditess (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Domestic terrorist? That may be a tad harsh. What if we take the phrase "domestic terrorist" and tweak it, just a hair, to something like, "a person heavily criticized".[2] Bob K31416 (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  How about "Mostly harmless"? Viriditas (talk) 08:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose This is the same Richard Armitage who falsely stated that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction which helped persuade the U.S. to enter a catastrophic war. He also "inadvertently" leaked the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, destroying her career. Viriditas, why do you think he is credible source? TFD (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

A truly bizarre comment. 1) That's not at all what happened (Hussein, Iraq War, Plame), and 2) Armitage is not the source for "Donald Trump is a domestic terrorist". You may wish to read this discussion or not, your choice. Viriditas (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

You began this discussion by saying, "Richard Armitage described him as a domestic terrorist in 2021." [02:26, 25 September 2022] Now you are saying, "Armitage is not the source for "Donald Trump is a domestic terrorist"." Do you see how someone could see that as a contradiction?

Armitage absolutely promoted the false WMDs in Iraq story and even signed the 1998 Project for a New American Century letter to President Bill Clinton which said Saddam Hussein should be removed from office because of the threat of WMDs.[3] And yes Armitage "outed" Valerie Plame, whose husband had been critical of the claims of WMDs, although he took three years to admit it.[4]

Do you know that Saddam Hussein did not have WMDs, that the White House fabricated the evidence for them and that independent security experts who had access to the reports from the administration said they were unbelievable? Is there any reason you base your beliefs on Armitage's conclusions? Maybe it's third time lucky?

TFD (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

None of that is accurate, and none of that has anything whatsoever to do with the evidence under discussion. This is most likely the most perfect red herring and distraction I’ve ever seen. Well done. Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

RFC??

Is this RFC worthy? If so, what would the RFC say? Cessaune (talk) 00:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

No. I originally put this material together in February 2021 and waited until now to discuss it and gauge the feeling of the community. The community is apparently still stuck in the year 2004. I will wait until after the next Trump-inspired attempted coup and insurrection to bring it up again. Viriditas (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

You probably want to be less open about your desire to push a particular POV (that Trump is a terrorist) into this article. The non-POV-pushing response would have been something like "we will re-evaluate the sources in the future." Levivich (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

No, yet again. I am always fully open about writing articles from the POV of our best sources, which say "Donald Trump is considered a 'terrorist leader' by national security experts". I notice that you just tried to turn the tables, and make this less about that claim and what our sources say, and more about what you personally believe about me and my motivation. I would like to say that these underhanded tactics reveal your POV much more than they do my own. I have been nothing but above board about my rationale and my goals. Viriditas (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I think your vitriol for those who disagree with you did more to kill your proposal than anything else. FrederalBacon (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Strange, again, as I see no "vitriol" at all, up above. Have you considered that these emotionally-laden observations extend only as far as yourself? Once again, great job distracting from the discussion. Viriditas (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I know you will just move the goalposts each and every time and play the no true Scotsman card., You’re confused., The honest truth is that it won’t matter how many sources I provide, there is no source you will accept. Just trying to save you some time., Did you even read this discussion?, A truly bizarre comment., Have you considered that these emotionally-laden observations extend only as far as yourself? I’d suggest you reevaluate your approach to discussion if you truly see no vitriol in these statements. Anon0098 (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Zero virtiol. None. Zilch. Nada. This is an extremely common tactic with Trump supporters and members of cults. They claim that anyone who criticizes their cult of personality is angry, upset, full of vitriol, and aggressive. There's actually articles about this phenomenon. I also experienced it firsthand when I laid out an extensive argument criticizing the cult of personality around Ronald Reagan. Editors showed up out of the blue just to claim that I was angry and full of vitriol. This kind of reaction appears to be endemic in conservative circles. Anyone who dares criticize their movement or their leaders is cruel and full of hate. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I have expressed zero emotions or POV about how I feel on this page. What I'm seeing is a massive amount of deflection, projection, and externalization of how Trump supporters feel about having their sacred cows tipped. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Please stop. Levivich (talk) 03:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

No. Susan Benesch: "Trump’s supporters need to hear his messages repudiated by other leaders they admire, such as ministers, media figures, and celebrities. Almost all of those have so far remained silent, or have decried the violence, but not its catalyst. They should now explain that Trump was wrong to teach them to see Democrats, Muslims, immigrants, and journalists, among others, as their enemies." Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Let me ask you a question, Viriditas: Why do you choose to take time out of your day to edit a website that gives you nothing in return, a website, in fact, which is inclined to take more out of you that you put into it?

Because you enjoy it.

If I had a phrase for the totality of Wikipedia it would be: The anarchy of society condensed into something almost organically human, a website of little happiness and lots of pain that derives it powers not from its greatness but from its weakness. Or something like that. That is the whole point of Wikipedia. It is an experiment, an early Internet experiment, in fact, one of the greatest experiments of all time. Humans have created an entire encyclopedia based on "the innate need that all nerds have to correct others", as my friend affectionally put it. And as such, we aren't all that different. We may be Trump supporters or pineapple-on-pizza haters or vegans or lesbians or cat lovers or professional handball players. We may have two kids or no kids or be an only child or be one of thirteen or be old or young or skinny or fat or Chinese or English or Nigerian, but it doesn't matter. Our differences create an equilibrium, the same tentative equilibrium that defines all of Wikipedia. We are not looking to push our point-of-view, or to deliberately inflame, or to disrupt, though these things may happen. We are simply seeking to make others understand us, and a lot of non-verbal explanation is obscured in online discussion, which creates a lot of problems. Believe me, we aren't looking to shame or embarass or annoy, though we are all human and it happens. It happens and it isn't fun when it does. Yet, we come back, we return to the screen, again and again and again. Why? Why do we choose to take time out of our day to edit a website that gives us nothing in return? Why?

Because, we all have one thing in common:

We love the truth.

The collective does not seek to destroy. The collective only seeks to create the best possible truth. Yes, the collective will be different in a week, a month, a day. But it will never be wrong, as long as good people continue to join in the effort, as long as we are able to understand that the 'truth' of Wikipedia might not be our own personal truth, or even the world's truth.

When we edit, we believe that what we are doing will make the world a better place. When we discuss, we improve. We promote. We shout down. We deny. We accept. And the cycle continues. We do not shout down out of hatred, no. We shout down out of respect. We shout down because we love this place. And we realize that at the end of the day, doing what we want comes second to doing what the collective wants. It took me a while to realize that, but once I did, editing Wikipedia became less of an obligation on behalf of a certain group and more of a responsibility on behalf of all humanity. Once we have realized that, in the eyes of Wikipedia, we have achieved perfection. Cessaune (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Please don't stop! Levivich (talk) 05:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree. The kind of discussion I always sought and never found, before I retired. Motion for exception to WP:NOTFORUM. Second? Seconded. Voting? Voting unanimous in favor, motion carries. 161.97.225.237 (talk) 05:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC) (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss)

That said, I'll differ with the content. Some keep coming back because they love the truth; I submit they are in a minority. Others keep coming back because they like (and maybe need) the mental stimulation and challenge. Others are here to push a political agenda, which is different from a pure interest in truth. Their versions of truth are merely tools employed to achieve larger goals. Then there are those for whom editing is a social outlet, and the average IQ is a bit higher here than over at, say, Facebook. And finally, some keep coming back because they are addicted to drama.

• We are human.
• We live on Earth.
• We can read and write English.
• We have computers or other internet-capable devices.
• We have internet access.
• We have the skills necessary to use it.

That's about all you can say about "we" English Wikipedia editors as a group. Certainly not "we" love the truth.

So I'd call it inspirational and very good writing (a la MLK Jr), but it comes up short in realism. Cessaune should run for political office. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 06:55, 2 October 2022 (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.

Talk: Talk page

any way bots or sanctions could be set up to protect the introductory body/faq in the talk page? seems like a pretty silly thing to leave to the whims of internet trolls 216.164.249.213 (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Page protection is generally only applied when a persistent problem arises, not as a preventative measure except in unusual or extenuating circumstances. ValarianB (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Trump lead citations

Wikipedia has made a negative, politically biased view of trump 2600:1017:B103:C5B4:9D50:B71A:AEC4:67DA (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Care to point out how? Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

One of the first paragraphs says "Trump promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics." With no sources or references. This is a clear statement of bias Croazz (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Those things are cited in the body. Often, things cited in the body do not need to be cited in the lead per MOS:LEADCITE. Since Trump is "controversial", I wouldn't oppose adding those citations to the lead. But that sentence isn't biased, it's accurate. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you sure they are cited in the body? Off hand, the part "...to a degree unprecedented in American politics" looks suspicious of being OR. Could you give the excerpt from the body, the source and the excerpt from the source that supports this part? Bob K31416 (talk) 01:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

But isn't the wording of the lead section mostly against WP:NPOV? I mean, "unprecedented in American politics" is a very strong statement and that is not based on anything. I think it is rather biased and imprecise. 3skandar (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

J6C Subpoena

On 13 October, 2022 Trump was subpoenaed by the House Select Committee Investigation The January 6th Capital Attack I feel this should be added to Post Presidency Investigations 2600:1004:B09C:48CB:21DF:6FEA:66E4:477F (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it should Andre🚐 21:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

It should be added for sure. Cessaune (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Feels WP:NOTNEWS -ish. Trump may "face the possibility of being held in contempt of Congress" if he fails to comply but it's not on the same level as having been held in contempt by a court and having been deposed in court. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I do think it should be added - but in due time. I think right now is a little soon to be rushing to add it as we do not yet have the context that will come with time to be able to analyze what it means. So far we don't know if he will respond and testify, refuse to respond, be held in contempt of congress, etc. We don't know if his testimony will fundamentally change our understanding of what happened on J6, if his refusal to comply will make him the first former president to be imprisoned, if the resulting lawsuits will create important legal precedent as the Nixon Tapes did... etc. Now, we don't need to wait forever for all the potential fall out, but just "was subpoenaed, watch this space for future developments" seems a little thin. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS - there's much more significant detail on the 1/6 matters that we do not cover. SPECIFICO talk 17:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be WP:NOTNEWS. Concur with Space4Time and SPECIFICO. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 17:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Lead citation?

Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist, and many as misogynistic. Does this require a citation, as according to consensus item 58? Cessaune (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, in the body. If it is not cited in the body it has no place in the lede. It does appear to be cited in the body (multiple sources) so ca cite in the lede is superfluous. Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

"58. There is consensus towards using inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations. (RfC May 2022, discussion on what to cite May 2022)"

Off hand, it looks like it might be synth. Using the vague "many" also raises a flag. In any case, a source would clarify. Otherwise a reader would have to find where in the body the items are stated and then go through the sources to try to find where the statement is made. If the reader is unable to find where, then they don't know if it's verifiable or if they just overlooked where it occurred. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Considering that there are entire sections titled Racial views and Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct, I would have serious doubts about the competence of anyone who couldn't find the statements and their sources. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

That's not the point. This was already argued, and it was decided that, regardless of whether the citation was redundant or found in the lead, that we would cite anyway. Cessaune (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you want to make it look like it was written by and for idiots, go ahead.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how citations in the lead makes the article look like it was written by and for idiots, Khajidha. Lots of articles cite in the lead, some extensively. Just press the random article button and check for yourself. It's very commonplace. And he is a notable BLP, so I think the citation is deserved. Cessaune (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

"Someone else did this stupid thing over there, so we should copy them here" is not a good argument. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, I don't see how citing in the lead is "stupid". Can you explain that reasoning? Cessaune (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Because the lead summarizes the article. It's entire purpose is to say "this is what I'm going to tell you. To get details, read the article." It's an abstract. Abstracts don't need citations. The article is the citation for the lead. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

We've already argued this and decided that, regardless, we would still cite (consensus item 58), mainly because:

1) MOS:CITELEAD says that the necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus.

2) It also says that there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads.

These two phrases make up the basis of why the consensus was decided that way. Cessaune (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Please see current consensus, item 49, for the presence of the sentence in the lead and it’s wording. The two RfCs that lead to the inclusion of the material in the lead and its current wording are Proposed shortening of sentence and Should false or misleading statements be mentioned in lead. There’s an entire Racial views section in the body and a Wikilink to Veracity of statements by Donald Trump in the lead sentence - not easy to overlook. Bob, as for the WP:SYNTH, please point out the improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research. Summing up dozens of sources saying he’s racist/made racist remarks/was critized as having made racist remarks with made many false and misleading statements isn’t synthesis. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC) I forgot to mention the mysogyny part. That's consensus item 51, based on this and this discussion. There's also Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations and, as Khajidha already pointed out, the Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct section in the body. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, because it is a WP:CONTENTIOUS statement that readers expect a citation for. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is all true. However, we already agreed to cite contentious statements in the lead. Unless we want to change that consensus, it really doesn't matter what is in the body. We would still need to cite it in the lead. Cessaune (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

What is the basis for your view that this is a contentious statement? SPECIFICO talk 15:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

It cites a "many" with no context. Cessaune (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Because it is summarizing the body! That's the freaking point! This is what I meant. Any reasonable person would understand that an introductory section like this is a summary of the full text that follows and look for context and references there. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The mistake that you are making is that you assume everybody to be "reasonable", or that people read beyond the leads of an article. Most people on social media don't read an article past the headline. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

If people are THAT stupid, I really don't care about their opinion on this article. As I said before, writing this way is writing for idiots and it is not what an encyclopedia should be doing.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

You really think that people who don't read beyond the leads of articles will read the citations and not come here and complain about the wording? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't propose rewriting anything, just adding more citations into the lead so that those people who don't read past it stop posting here on the talk page about how the lead is uncited, to which we respond "it's in the body", ad nauseum. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

We shouldn't be catering to idiots. The ad nauseum response is preferable. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I see the point you're making. I remember somebody making the claim a while back that "it is controversial to say that 'many of Trump's comments are racist', but it isn't controversial to say that 'many of Trump's comments have been characterized as racist'." Cessaune (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

"Many" needs context? I would have thought it's self-explanatory, more than a few. What you seem to be suggesting is that we can't use wording in the lead unless there is a specific source that uses the exact wording. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

My basis for the view that it is a contentious statement is that our manual of style specifically describes "racist" and "misogynistic" as contentious labels. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Republican in Name Only

Anyone argument against having this citation is an argument against settled consensus. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

What consensus? Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Consensus item 58. If it can be proved to be controversial, we have already decided that it requires a citation. Cessaune (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, lets have one cite for each claim then. Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

It's contentious, according to that MOS link, unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject - and it's well-sourced in the article text, so how is it contentious? It's like the thing about Ted Cruz and the Rhinoceros. It can be controversial to say that Ted Cruz has a horny forehead, but it would not be contentious to say that about a rhinoceros. SPECIFICO talk 02:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not finding the phrasing unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. Can you point it out to me? Cessaune (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Your interpretation of that sentence from WP:CONTENTIOUS is inaccurate. This is the whole sentence:

Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

It's saying contentious phrases should be avoided unless they're widely used by reliable sources. It's still a contentious phrase either way and the MOS calls for attribution of contentious phrases, which is another reason for a cite. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The lead sentence doesn't call Trump a racist or a misogynist, so MOS:LABEL, aka MOS:RACIST and WP:CONTENTIOUS, doesn't apply. That leaves the question whether many of Trump's comments and actions were characterized as racially charged, racist, and/or misogynistic. We're dealing with several consensuses. We also have items 30 and 51 that say they were characterized as such, so how can "many" be contentious? That's what Cessaune was questioning originally. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

It's very well attributed in the body, so I am not seeing that there is any requirement to cite it inline at the lead. After many group discussions of sourcing and of whether and how to characterize some of his statements as racist, I don't view this as contentious content. It's not a condemnation, just a fact according to the cited references. SPECIFICO talk 13:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:LABEL "is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." The purpose of the guideline is to ask editors to "be cautious with expressions that may introduce bias, lack precision, or include offensive terms." I don't think that the use of the term in the article violates the spirit of the guideline. Trump's comments about Mexican immigrants and "shithole countries" and asking non-white Americans to go back where they come from have been widely reported and condemned as racist. That has to be in the article. I cannot think of any other phrasing that doesn't violate the related guideline of WP:DOUBT. TFD (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Of course, but WP:LABEL also says in which case use in-text attribution. Cessaune (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

So do we have 15 names "and Tom, Dick and Harry, as well as sally Bert and George said Trump is a..."? There comes a point when a lable is so widely used it can't be attributed to only one or two people. Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The label is sourced inline -- just not in the lead. SPECIFICO talk 16:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but MOS:LEADCITE says there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. So based on those two guidelines, wouldn't we put a citation in the lead and in the body? Cessaune (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

As I've said, I don't find the statement controversial at this point. It is very widespread. I suspect, even among a majority of his voters who wouldn't deny it but think other factors are more important to them and their voting choice. SPECIFICO talk 17:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I would like to say something:

Nobody can deny the statement at this point. We all know he has said racist things and that he has said misogynistic things (and that, yes, he is racist and misogynistic). And, when you take it at face value, it shouldn't be controversial at all: it does not call him a racist ot state that he is misogynistic. That doesn't stop people from coming here and stating that the article is biased. The question is, why?

I feel like a negative outcome here would, in my imagination, make certain bystanders feel like nothing can be done. If we can't even cite in the lead, something which literally does not change the article in the slightest, it then becomes impossible to address the bigger problems that people have with this article. You know? I think citing the lead, as extensively as possible, would be the beginning of reconciliation. That's just my honest opinion. If citing in the lead is the compromise we have to make to ensure that even one person becomes more educated, I see that as a win. Cessaune (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that there will be a citation in the lead for this item. Since this is a biased article which has little chance of being remedied, maybe the lack of citations in the lead is for the best because it adds to the appearance of bias and readers can be alerted to that by just looking at the lead. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The only bias in this article is a bias towards reality. And, no, we won't be changing that. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

As I see it, we should be either all in or all out on this. We should either cite nothing in the lead or throw out the doctrine completely; there is no useful middle ground.

Adding a few citations to the lead would merely increase expectations for the rest. It's misguided to believe a few citations would reduce the number of complaints. "If X is cited, why aren't Y and Z?" ... "Oh, I see you're now citing Y and Z. Thank you. If X, Y, and Z are cited, why aren't A and B?" ... without end. Anything remotely negative will be controversial to many readers, and there is nothing we can do about that. Anything not negative enough will be controversial to many other readers, and there is nothing we can do about that. Trump is controversial. I think it's generally a bad strategy to try to placate readers who don't know how Wikipedia works.

Consider adding something about this in the FAQ? That wouldn't reduce the number of complaints since nobody reads the FAQ before complaining, but it might facilitate the responses to the complaints.

A much better solution would be a permanent tag at the top of the article, but for some reason I don't see that happening. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 20:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

This is unfortunately the fallout from that dumpster fire May 2022 RfC, which just did a vague wave at "yea people want to cite stuff, but we can't actually tell you what in this RfC. Figure it out, y'all!". Zaathras (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Many editors feel that maximum flexibility is a worthwhile goal, and that most bright-line rules are evil; it's part of the culture. I feel that that often creates more problems than it solves, this being one example. The RfC was about whether we should allow any cites in the lead and, as such, it was constructive although I disagree with the outcome. It would've been too much to take on the specifics in that RfC.

Frankly, I had forgotten about that RfC. It seems that doing the right thing would require a new RfC that reversed that consensus. That seems unlikely, so the more pragmatic side of me would support throwing out the doctrine completely as nonviable. It would be the least-bad solution, better than the status quo. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The sentence implies that Trump is a racist and misogynistic. Bob K31416 (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

And so? SPECIFICO talk 09:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

It's more than an implication, it specifically says that his comments and actions have been characterized as racist and misogynistic. How Space4Time3Continuum2x believes WP:CONTENTIOUS doesn't apply is beyond me. Having a consensus doesn't make it any less contentious in encyclopedic context. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and they have been, saying "they have been called X" is not the same as saying "they are X", are you really saying that no one has said these things bout him? Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not that it's not true (because it is), those words are just generally inflammatory. Cessaune (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED. just because people do not like it is not a reason to exclude it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting that we write our page to placate people who can't handle the fact that a guy has been described in unflattering ways? Really? If they can't handle the fact that Trump has been called those things, then they REALLY do not want to know what I think of THEM. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

But isn't the whole point to add citations for things that are considered inflammatory? If people will consider it inflammatory, shouldn't we cite it? The fact is, whether or not people are idiots, we must cater to them. That is the whole point of Wikipedia, isn't it? Cessaune (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

We do cite it. In the body. Where it belongs. And, no, Wikipedia is for people who want to learn. If they are too lazy or too stupid to read the article, they likely aren't going to read the citations anyway.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Bingo! Most of the people who object are the same ones who refuse to believe RS and who believe unreliable sources and conspiracy theories. NO citation ANYWHERE in the article will help them. They are beyond help. That leaves us with those who will benefit, and there are complainers who will believe a citation if we provide it in the lead. They don't understand how Wikipedia works, and we should not expect them to do so. That's why we sometimes make exceptions to our general "no citations in the lead" PREFERENCE. Policy does allow citations in the lead, and sometimes, just to shut the mouths of complainers and to save us lots of time, we do supply citations in the lead. We can end this thread if we do it now. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The sentence is written exactly the way WP:BLPSTYLE says BLP should be written, responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects. FormalDude, your and Cessaune's argument seems to be that you think it is but some people might argue that it isn't. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

"About half of registered voters believe President Trump is racist, according to a new national poll released Tuesday, which showed voters are sharply divided along partisan lines on the question."[5] "White voters are divided as 46 percent say he is racist and 50 percent say he is not, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University National Poll finds. Trump is racist black voters say 80 - 11 percent and Hispanic voters say 55 - 44 percent. Men say 55 - 41 percent that Trump is not racist. Women say 59 - 36 percent he is racist."[6] Bob K31416 (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

This is getting into WP:BLUDGEON territory. The issue for WP editors is what the weight of RS say, and in multiple talk page discussions of this issue, the current text has been hashed and vetted and reached consensus. Let's close this thread now and stop replying to every straw man and repetition of complaints. SPECIFICO talk 14:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Since the sentence implies that Trump is a racist, and about half of registered voters believe Trump is not a racist, the sentence is contentious and should have a citation, according to consensus item 58 and MOS:LEADCITE. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

No, as we go by what RS say, not the bloke down the pub (and that assumes you are correct, and half of voters do not think it is racist, rather than say think he is and agrees with him). And again it is cited, in the body, more than once. Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

contentious — likely to cause disagreement or argument[7]

It's not a matter of whether or not that it's true that Trump is a racist, it's a matter of whether the statement is contentious. There are 168 million registered voters in the US.[8] They are split as to whether or not Trump is a racist.[9] So it's contentious. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia defines it in policy, and it is policy we are concerned with. We only take into account what RS think, as we can't know what even you are thinking right now (hence why wp:v). And we do not say he is a racist, in the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll just make a closing remark and leave it at that. I think you're confusing the issue with irrelevant statements. The issue is whether or not to add a citation to the subject sentence in the lead. From consensus item 58, there is consensus towards using inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements and this is supported by MOS:LEADCITE. The sentence is contentious because it implies that Trump is a racist and about half of US registered voters disagree with that. So a citation should be added to the sentence.

It's clear that a citation should be added. But this is a contentious Wikipedia article on a controversial subject and in that kind of situation it may be that what is clearly correct is not always implemented. I have no hard feelings towards any of you for not taking the correct path. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll just make a closing remark and leave it at that. Betcha 12 bitcoin it'll turn out you don't just leave it at that.

Would you also require lead references in Joe Biden's article where the first sentence says he is the President of the US? Do we need a footnote for "was" POTUS in this article? SPECIFICO talk 16:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I saw what you did there. You bet him he couldn't leave it at that, and then asked him questions that he can't answer without losing the bet. Clever! (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, I must say I was stunned to see the suggestion that we ignore RS and go with whatever might upset a cohort of our presumed readership. Maybe the doubters who do not believe the sources that Trump is racist are also the same ones who do not read Wikipedia articles about Trump to begin with? SPECIFICO talk 21:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Additional detail/context for tax cuts

Existing Text
"He signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which cut taxes for individuals and businesses and rescinded the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Act. "

Proposed Text
"He signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which cut taxes for individuals and businesses, notably with 65% of the tax savings going to the top 20% of income earners and adding an estimated $2.289 trillion to the national debt over ten years. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 also rescinded the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Act." Jrpotts (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Suggested copyedit, also there should be appropriate wikilinks added:

"He signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which cut taxes predominantly for businesses and individuals in the upper 20% of earners. The legislation was initiated by his cabinet and was projected to add $2.289 trillion to the national debt over ten years, partly due to its repeal of the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act.[1][2]"

SPECIFICO talk 14:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

If it's not in the body, it doesn't go in the lead, and I believe the proposal is referring to the lead? Too much detail for the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. For the lead, the "existing text" seems fine. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

References

• The existing text above is what is in the lead. Are we proposing a change to the lead? If so, I agree with Space4Time and SPECIFICO that the proposed text would be excessive detail. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 21:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

While normally i'd agree, it seems that such a large portion of that administration's domestic policy, was in appealing to working-class voters and deficit reduction. This add context of what the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act actually did. Otherwise, it appears like a win instead of in the proper context. Jrpotts (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Is it not a win? I fail to see how tax cuts for everyone somehow isn't a win for everyone. Cessaune (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

"deficit reduction" Trade deficit or budget deficit? Dimadick (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• This is just pushing a POV, why you think the tax cuts were bad is not meant for the lead, any necessary context belongs in the body, and this shouldn't even be there. It cut taxes for every tax bracket, the percentage that went to each bracket is irrelevant. We do not have time to explain the specifics of why you dislike every policy that Trump enacted. There is no benefit to the reader by adding this, trillions more were added to the debt by various other things and the specific groups affected by a policy is too much detail to add for every policy. Bill Williams 01:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Dollar sign

Khajidha, I meant to use to it in the section for "businessman" but it's just as suitable for "politician" — those conflicts of interest, making the Secret Service pay through the nose for rent on his properties while protecting him, etc. On second thought, $$ would be even better. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

That's hilarious, maybe a Freudian slip? 🤣 -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Further reading and See also sections

Very oddly, we don't have them, and why shouldn't we? The latest attempt was killed immediately. Somewhat related, we do have a Bibliography of Donald Trump article which is linked to from the "Media career" section. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Why do we need them? The reason we don't have them is the usual one, i.e., the article is very long, as it is, and both are optional (MOS:FURTHER, MOS:SEEALSO). The article is full of links to other articles, main article, further information, see also, as well as inline. The Donald Trump series infobox and the nav boxes also list many articles, and the "Media by and about Donald Trump" navbox at the bottom lists around 30 books written about Trump. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Good points. They seem to be superfluous here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

"Trump continued to claim that a vaccine was months away"

From section COVID-19 pandemic > Initial response

Trump continued to claim that a vaccine was months away, although HHS and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials had repeatedly told him that vaccine development would take 12–18 months.

References

From the source for the above item,

“So you’re talking over the next few months, you think you could have a vaccine?” Trump asked during a meeting with top health officials on Monday.

“You won’t have a vaccine,” corrected Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar after some cross talk. “You’ll have a vaccine to go into testing.”

“All right, so you’re talking within a year,” Trump said moments later.

“A year to a year and a half,” interjected Anthony Fauci, a government veteran of disease outbreaks under six presidents.

So according to the source used in this Wikipedia article, Trump did not claim that a vaccine was months away but asked about it. Also, when the vaccine came out 9 months later on Dec 11, 2020, Dr. Fauci said that he had no idea it would come out so fast.[10]

Later in the source there is,

Trump’s allies said the president’s rhetoric on a shortened vaccine timeline is helping accelerate the process.

“If President Trump went by the old messaging playbook, we wouldn’t see a coronavirus vaccine for years. Instead he’s aggressively pushing the NIH, [the Centers for Disease Control], our top researchers and even private drug companies to get it done immediately,” said Jason Miller, senior communications adviser on the 2016 Trump campaign.

“And if President Trump ruffles a few feathers with his hyperbole in the pursuit of a cure to keep people safe, there will be zero complaints,” he added. “Good for him.”

Bob K31416 (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I believe that Trump's "question" above already qualifies as "claiming the vaccine was months away", as he was continuously pushing his own narrative that had to be corrected, as we see here, by people with actual scientific knowledge. But if we need a second source to shore this up, there's plenty of quotes to mine from Fact-checking Trump’s accelerated timeline for a coronavirus vaccine. As for the 2nd part, Jason Miller was Trump's partisan mouthpiece, his words do not get to be quoted here as fact. Zaathras (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The Politico article is dated March 5, 2020. The first vaccine approved for emergency use was BioNTech/Pfizer in December, they developed it without U.S. government funds, and I'm pretty sure they didn't give two figs for Trump's rhetoric. Trump's questions/statements implied that a vaccine would be ready within a few months/within a year. That's his MO, put it out there first and everything that follows won't be heard. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Czello, where does the source say "less than year", as you say in your edit summary? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

“All right, so you’re talking within a year,” Trump said moments later. “A year to a year and a half,” interjected Anthony Fauci, a government veteran of disease outbreaks under six presidents. — Czello 12:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

"A few" is a perfectly acceptable term for a small number of months, usually less than five. That's what he first implied on March 4, and it wasn't the first time he implied it. Not the last time, either: NBC, May 2020, AP, November 2020. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Personally I feel "a few" is too casual language for an encyclopedia, unless it's a quote. I'm happy for the sentence to be made more precise, though, if "less than a year" is too ambiguous. — Czello 12:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Kind of a reverse doomsday prophet — if Armageddon doesn't take place on the date predicted, reschedule. continued to claim that a vaccine would be available within months? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy with that wording. — Czello 12:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The source is an opinion piece. It interprets Trump's questions to support the opinion that he is incompetent. When reporting opinions, it should be done explicitly with intext citation, explaining its degree of support. This text was added shortly after the article was published and there are newer and better sources that should be used instead. TFD (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

We should be using the many books that have been published over the past 2 years in order to get away from real-time news reporting. The consensus of the half dozen I have read is more conclusive and perhaps less likely to please you than this innocuous old contemporpaneous piece. You can start with the Bob Woodward intereview for his book published over a year ago and work up to the recent Haberman volume, which I've not finished reading. SPECIFICO talk 15:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article was changed and currently there is,[11]

Trump continued to claim that a vaccine was less than a year away, although HHS and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials had repeatedly told him that vaccine development would take 12–18 months. Trump also falsely claimed ...

References

The fact is that the vaccine came out less than a year later (9 months) on Dec 11, 2020, and the first deliveries were Dec 14.[12][13] So the Wikipedia article makes a false implication. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

"I've heard very quick numbers — a matter of months — and I've heard pretty much a year would be an outside number. So I think that's not a bad — that's not a bad range. But if you're talking about three to four months, in a couple of cases, and a year in other cases — wouldn't you say, doctor, would that be about right?" President Trump, coronavirus roundtable meeting, March 2, 2020 (WaPo), President Donald Trump has suggested multiple times that a coronavirus vaccine could come within months (NBC). Further down in the Politico article cited by you: in the meantime, he’s sharing some inaccurate theories and asking confounding questions about how a vaccine might work, all while the cameras roll. Anyway, I don't know what you're complaining about when I should be the one who's complaining. The text now says that he continued to claim that a vaccine was less than a year away when he kept going back to "months, isn't that about right". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of section references in the lead

Recapitulating what's going on: It's an application of Valjean's idea to eliminate any perceived need for lead cites by providing section references in the lead linking to the section in the body, with the refcites and the wikilinks to other articles, that's summarized by the sentence(s) in the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Bingo! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

This is turning into Wikipedia:WikiProject lead cleanup. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I added section references to another paragraph and added a couple "back to top" buttons to the body to see what other editors think about them. There may be "take it to the sandbox" reactions but how is anyone going to compare these proposed changes with other articles unless they're in an actual and complex article? The "back to top" button works but I had to add it to the heading, so it now shows up in the TOC which wasn't the intention. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Unforeseen consequence: the button in the TOC links to the body section . I deleted them. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah yeah we'll have to tweak the button code a bit to make it work in a heading. Andre🚐 16:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

So far it looks good and is an improvement. Good work! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Contrary to my initial concern on the 12th, it is in fact significantly less clutter than a bunch of citations. It looks remarkably and unexpectedly clean, illustrating one of the reasons to Just Do It. It's a major improvement to the article in multiple ways, and I'm proud of us. Can't wait to see this adopted at other articles after we have a template.

On the subject of the template, I think some consideration of the template name is in order. "Leadref" has worked for purposes of discussion, but these are not refs; rather, they are an alternative to refs in the lead. That said, I can't think of anything better at the moment. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that some other, very unique, name is needed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Technically they are reference links to anchors or targets, if that gives you any ideas. You can also use the {{anchor}} template to make anchors anywhere.

For example...

here Andre🚐 01:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Looks alright I guess. Name it after yourself, WP:SpaceRefs! Zaathras (talk) 01:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some guy who sells spontaneously self-combusting cars has dibs on "SpaceLink". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Lead section anchors. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

They aren't anchors. Consider "lead section links", or LSLs. {{lsl|First impeachment}}. If an editor doesn't use them enough to remember the somewhat cryptic template name, they can simply look at existing examples. There is plenty of precedent for acronym template names, such as {{pb}} for paragraph break or {{tl}} for template link. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 02:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes technically the anchor is the object of the link, and not the link itself. They would be anchor links. Andre🚐 02:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I note belatedly that the actual template names are {{Paragraph break}} and {{Template link}}, respectively, with redirects for the acronyms. So our template name could be "Lead section link", with an "lsl" redirect, but the long form would be rarely or never used. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 02:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Interwiki links, piped links, and section links are all cross-references to targets, i.e., page name/label of another article, section heading in another article, and section heading in the same article, respectively. The items in the TOC are links/hyperlinks to the section and subsection headings in the body. The §-link is another link/hyperlink pointing to a heading in the body. (I hope this explanation — for my benefit as much as yours — is correct.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Since "section links are all cross-references to targets, i.e., page name/label of another article, section heading in another article, and section heading in the same article respectively," can't we call these something like "lead to section links" or "lead section links"? The only difference is that we use a section/pilcrow/paragraph symbol rather than a hashtag, and it's strictly for the local article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Upon further reflection:

If one put a {{section link}} in a lead (which I've seen happen occasionally), that would be a lead section link, no? To avoid that, maybe "lead basis section" or something equally unique?

I actually like "lead basis section"—(1) it better reflects the purpose of the thing, and (2) the lead is formally called the "lead section" (WP:LEAD)—but {{lbs}} already exists. For the redirect, we'd have to use "lbsect" or something (I don't recommend "leadbs" ;)).

Maybe I'm overthinking this a little, as the name is somewhat arbitrary; {{xyz|First impeachment}} would work equally well since there's no need to memorize the name. But it's not arbitrary enough to call it a ref or an anchor, since that would be clearly incorrect. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm...thinking here...(sounds of churning)... It can be named after its function, location, and/or target.

Maybe it should be named after its target, not its own location in the lead. It's a link in the lead section that points to a body section. Right? Would some variation of body section link work?

Also, maybe use a little arrow pointing down instead of the current paragraph symbol. That idea was in a dream. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I think dreaming about this stuff is considered a sign that a wikibreak is in order. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Lead-to-section link (ltsl, lts, lsl)? (I wouldn't have recommended "lbs", either, but that horse has left the barn.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I like that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm sticking with lead basis section. I like the word basis. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Further reading and See also sections

Very oddly, we don't have them, and why shouldn't we? The latest attempt was killed immediately. Somewhat related, we do have a Bibliography of Donald Trump article which is linked to from the "Media career" section. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Why do we need them? The reason we don't have them is the usual one, i.e., the article is very long, as it is, and both are optional (MOS:FURTHER, MOS:SEEALSO). The article is full of links to other articles, main article, further information, see also, as well as inline. The Donald Trump series infobox and the nav boxes also list many articles, and the "Media by and about Donald Trump" navbox at the bottom lists around 30 books written about Trump. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Good points. They seem to be superfluous here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

"Trump continued to claim that a vaccine was months away"

From section COVID-19 pandemic > Initial response

Trump continued to claim that a vaccine was months away, although HHS and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials had repeatedly told him that vaccine development would take 12–18 months.

References

From the source for the above item,

“So you’re talking over the next few months, you think you could have a vaccine?” Trump asked during a meeting with top health officials on Monday.

“You won’t have a vaccine,” corrected Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar after some cross talk. “You’ll have a vaccine to go into testing.”

“All right, so you’re talking within a year,” Trump said moments later.

“A year to a year and a half,” interjected Anthony Fauci, a government veteran of disease outbreaks under six presidents.

So according to the source used in this Wikipedia article, Trump did not claim that a vaccine was months away but asked about it. Also, when the vaccine came out 9 months later on Dec 11, 2020, Dr. Fauci said that he had no idea it would come out so fast.[14]

Later in the source there is,

Trump’s allies said the president’s rhetoric on a shortened vaccine timeline is helping accelerate the process.

“If President Trump went by the old messaging playbook, we wouldn’t see a coronavirus vaccine for years. Instead he’s aggressively pushing the NIH, [the Centers for Disease Control], our top researchers and even private drug companies to get it done immediately,” said Jason Miller, senior communications adviser on the 2016 Trump campaign.

“And if President Trump ruffles a few feathers with his hyperbole in the pursuit of a cure to keep people safe, there will be zero complaints,” he added. “Good for him.”

Bob K31416 (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I believe that Trump's "question" above already qualifies as "claiming the vaccine was months away", as he was continuously pushing his own narrative that had to be corrected, as we see here, by people with actual scientific knowledge. But if we need a second source to shore this up, there's plenty of quotes to mine from Fact-checking Trump’s accelerated timeline for a coronavirus vaccine. As for the 2nd part, Jason Miller was Trump's partisan mouthpiece, his words do not get to be quoted here as fact. Zaathras (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The Politico article is dated March 5, 2020. The first vaccine approved for emergency use was BioNTech/Pfizer in December, they developed it without U.S. government funds, and I'm pretty sure they didn't give two figs for Trump's rhetoric. Trump's questions/statements implied that a vaccine would be ready within a few months/within a year. That's his MO, put it out there first and everything that follows won't be heard. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Czello, where does the source say "less than year", as you say in your edit summary? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

“All right, so you’re talking within a year,” Trump said moments later. “A year to a year and a half,” interjected Anthony Fauci, a government veteran of disease outbreaks under six presidents. — Czello 12:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

"A few" is a perfectly acceptable term for a small number of months, usually less than five. That's what he first implied on March 4, and it wasn't the first time he implied it. Not the last time, either: NBC, May 2020, AP, November 2020. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Personally I feel "a few" is too casual language for an encyclopedia, unless it's a quote. I'm happy for the sentence to be made more precise, though, if "less than a year" is too ambiguous. — Czello 12:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Kind of a reverse doomsday prophet — if Armageddon doesn't take place on the date predicted, reschedule. continued to claim that a vaccine would be available within months? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy with that wording. — Czello 12:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The source is an opinion piece. It interprets Trump's questions to support the opinion that he is incompetent. When reporting opinions, it should be done explicitly with intext citation, explaining its degree of support. This text was added shortly after the article was published and there are newer and better sources that should be used instead. TFD (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

We should be using the many books that have been published over the past 2 years in order to get away from real-time news reporting. The consensus of the half dozen I have read is more conclusive and perhaps less likely to please you than this innocuous old contemporpaneous piece. You can start with the Bob Woodward intereview for his book published over a year ago and work up to the recent Haberman volume, which I've not finished reading. SPECIFICO talk 15:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article was changed and currently there is,[15]

Trump continued to claim that a vaccine was less than a year away, although HHS and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials had repeatedly told him that vaccine development would take 12–18 months. Trump also falsely claimed ...

References

The fact is that the vaccine came out less than a year later (9 months) on Dec 11, 2020, and the first deliveries were Dec 14.[16][17] So the Wikipedia article makes a false implication. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

"I've heard very quick numbers — a matter of months — and I've heard pretty much a year would be an outside number. So I think that's not a bad — that's not a bad range. But if you're talking about three to four months, in a couple of cases, and a year in other cases — wouldn't you say, doctor, would that be about right?" President Trump, coronavirus roundtable meeting, March 2, 2020 (WaPo), President Donald Trump has suggested multiple times that a coronavirus vaccine could come within months (NBC). Further down in the Politico article cited by you: in the meantime, he’s sharing some inaccurate theories and asking confounding questions about how a vaccine might work, all while the cameras roll. Anyway, I don't know what you're complaining about when I should be the one who's complaining. The text now says that he continued to claim that a vaccine was less than a year away when he kept going back to "months, isn't that about right". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Navbox "Media by and about Trump"

I added two books to the Trump media template but they are not shown in the navbox at the bottom of the article. Did I do that wrong, or do I need do something else? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

They appear now. Sometimes there is a delay before things appear. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Long wikilink

Valjean, I shortened neither served in the military nor held any government office prior to becoming president to "neither served in the military nor held any government office prior to becoming president" because it's just so much blue. Will the shorter link really confuse any reader? I also think the two sentences at the beginning of the second paragraph were better: Trump graduated from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania with a bachelor's degree in 1968. He became president of his father's real estate business in 1971 and renamed it The Trump Organization. There's a distinct break between the 1968 graduation and the 1971 real estate promotion. Maybe I'm overthinking this, but using the participle phrase "renaming it" seems to infer that he became president of the company by renaming it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Both of those edits are a mystery to me. (Did I edit a previous version?) I did not intend to make either of those edits, and when I discovered I had inadvertently deleted quite a bit of content, I restored it and made that small tweak. Feel free to do whatever you want with them. I was only trying to improve the election denial stuff. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Removal of education from the lead

I disagree with the removal of his education from the lead.[18] That's a basic biographical fact, almost as basic as date and place of birth. It was part of the <20% of the lead not about his presidency, which is well covered in multiple other articles. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I looked at other presidents' bios and they had college in the lead. They didn't have bachelor degree. Here's what a restore would look like without mentioning the bachelor degree.

Trump graduated from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in 1968.

Bob K31416 (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

We should be consistent with other president’s bios. I’ve added back he went to UPenn but removed his degree. Iamreallygoodatcheckers

^t@lk 20:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity: why are you putting part of your signature on a new line? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I don't know why it did that. Maybe it had something do with the fact I made the edit with my iPad and not my laptop. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, new hardware? It wasn’t the first time I noticed you doing that and thought it was intentional. Looking for meaning and finding a typo … Pressing shift and return on the keyboard at the same time produces a line break. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

That's been discussed numerous times. Wharton is well-known for its graduate program, currently ranked seventh-best in the U.S. Trump didn't attend it but sort of glossed over the fact that he attended Wharton's undergraduate program . In the case of other presidents, it's clear from the types of schools they attended that they have graduate degrees. Obama's lead, for example, says that he graduated from Columbia and Harvard Law School. George W. Bush's lead for some reason doesn't mention that he graduated from Yale, but it does mention that he graduated from Harvard Business School. Bill Clinton's lead says Georgetown and Yale Law School. I also shortened the big, fat neon sign again. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Only you college grad types think it's a basic biological fact. I'd rank it somewhere below his weight and his wig. I thought Bob's edit was OK for the lead. It's not as if Trump has a degree that relates any way to the major points of his life. I I don't see any references saying that his B-School savvy is what made his career or accomplishments. SPECIFICO talk 20:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Accomplishments? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Squigglies, throughout the page

May we please delete those little squiggly (which link to sections of this very BLP) things out of this BLPs content. They're scattered all over the page & don't look good. GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

You mean what was discussed in Talk:Donald_Trump#Leadrefs? Zaathras (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I've opened up an RFC on it. It's too big a proposal to implement, with the support of 'only' five editors. GoodDay (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Does this mean we all have to return our barnstars for doing this? This was discussed and then implemented as a BOLD experiment that succeeded even better than expected. The multiple benefits are worth getting accustomed to those discrete links.

All new improvements meet resistance, and I'm surprised that you, of all people, are the one who objected and jumped the gun without engaging in a good discussion at the talk page. Slow down. We probably will need an RfC, but not yet. Wait with the RfC. Perform due diligence and understand this before going off half-cocked. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

What does BLP have to do with it? Andre🚐 02:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Trump's still alive. Anyways, I've opened an RFC at WP:CREATELEAD's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 02:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

RFC is out of order IMO, WP:RFCBEFORE and swooping in without an impetus. Yes, he is alive, and he is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and how do the reference formatting decisions affect this? Andre🚐 02:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not out of order. Ya'll should've had an RFC on whether or not to implement the proposed changes. GoodDay (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

There was no need because it was done on a local article and in accordance with the prevailing opinion of a discussion over the course of several days, as an experiment, and if it were successful it could be proposed as a global system. You may of course disagree, but since the policy change is something you oppose, your RFC is not NPOV or proper: it's basically a referendum on something you don't like. Which is not what an RFC is supposed to be, it's supposed to be a statement of the proposal in a neutral way and one that explains what was being proposed. Andre🚐 02:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Either outsiders will agree to the changes implemented or they won't. The RFC is worded neutrally. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

BOLD does not require an RfC. This was carefully implemented by a group of very experienced editors. BLP is not an issue as this actually ensures BLP better than the current practice of avoiding refs in the lead, refs that are much more disturbing to the eye than the squigglies.

This ties the lead to the exact sections with the refs, unlike our current leads. It leaves a much cleaner lead. Of course, now that you are focused on the squigglies, you can't "not see" them, but please try. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

One alternative option to improve the presentation, if we are objecting to the appearance of the glyphs, would be to number the leadrefs (I just want to call them leadrefs, I'm sorry, it's easier and it sticks) instead of using the section sign. Andre🚐 02:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• I'll say this about the little squiggles. They definitely aren't conventional on Wikipedia, and it's quite a step to just try this on such a publicized page. I think it would be better to just use references for some of the claims since the squiggles seem distracting, but if that's not an option, I'm neutral to this over no references at all. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 02:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• There are two aspects to the squigglies. One is that they refer to relevant sections in the article. The other is that they are a substitute for citations. The latter aspect is in conflict with consensus item 58,

"58. There is consensus towards using inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations. (RfC May 2022, discussion on what to cite May 2022)"

Bob K31416 (talk) 02:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• This actually complies with the idea behind that consensus because it points to the exact section where even more refs are found. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• Pointing to the section is fine, but it doesn't point to the ref, according to consensus item 58. Bob K31416 (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• I understand. Feel free to restore those refs until this matter is solved. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• Never mind. I went ahead and did it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• It looks fine, although I would suggest putting the squiggly after the citations so it doesn't look like the citations are sections. Bob K31416 (talk) 04:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

•  Done -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• The squigglies are much less distracting than ordinary numbered refs, and they are specific, regardless of whether sections are moved or other sections inserted. This is a new idea and takes getting used to. The conservative mind will always object to such changes. It's a natural human reaction to anything new and takes time to get used to, but once one realizes why and how, it's well worth it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• Although squigglies are useful for reference to the relevant section, they don't give the RS that supports the statement. Regarding "The squigglies are much less distracting than ordinary numbered refs", I don't find the ordinary refs distracting in the body of the article but find them very useful and an important manifestation of the Wikipedia policy of verifiability. Bob K31416 (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• I feel the same way, but there is a widespread consensus to avoid refs in the lead because they are visually disturbing and make it seem messy. I also understand that and support that consensus. This move goes a step further to meet concerns created by the lack of references in the lead, a problem created because policy still requires references everywhere, even in the lead. Since nearly everything in the lead is supposed to be based on referenced content in the body, the squigglies point to the exact sections where the explanations, details, and references are found to back up the exact content in the lead. They do more than just adding a few refs in the lead, and are visually less disturbing than normal numbered refs.

Take a look at the lead at Steele dossier and compare it with the lead here. This looks much better. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The lead at the Steel dossier page, is less 'messy' then the lead here. GoodDay (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Your opinion is totally at odds with the consensus to avoid refs in the lead because they are visually disturbing and messy. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

We're in disagreement on which is a better solution. GoodDay (talk) 03:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

On that we agree! Peace. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The lead of the Steele dossier is about a fairly simple topic with a lot fewer Wikilinks than the lead on Trump’s 76-year life, and the accumulation of five, four, and three cites all over it is a pretty big optical distraction, IMO. The "squigglies" have a Wikipedia page and several names: section sign, silcrow, section symbol, and section mark. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, one of the versions of the template would allow the refs in the lead to point to the footnotes themselves in the section. Andre🚐 03:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Considering that this had fervent and almost unanimous support at this article, including some of its most experienced and competent editors, your starting an RfC unilaterally, without even discussing it first, was improper and irresponsible. This could not be more clear at WP:RFCBEFORE; I suggest you read it.

Your calling the section signs "squigglies", alone, shows your lack of understanding of the concept, and it's absurd to say they look worse or are more distracting than citation numbers when it's one character versus three to five.

That was a knee-jerk and very misguided action on your part, and you have done a disservice to the project. Whether it will ultimately kill this major progress remains to be seen. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 09:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

First of all, who are you? Secondly, for all we know the RFC result may turn out to be 'adopt Valjean's idea, for all pages'. GoodDay (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm currently 161.97.225.237 and I have years of editing experience. Your question implies that IPs somehow have lower status than registered users, which flies in the face of Wikipedia and WMF policy. It also shows that you don't read very carefully before replying, since my comment clearly answers your question.

Otherwise, your comment is unresponsive to my points, particularly the one about RFCBEFORE.

Yes, your RfC could result in adoption project-wide, but it's more likely the concept will be killed before it has had a chance to prove itself in practice with a much smaller scope. This article was a prototype of the concept until you made that virtually impossible. 161.97.225.237 (talk) 09:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Articles should not be used in such a (experimental) manner, if this is a prototype. GoodDay (talk) 09:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I believe that's false, but feel free to correct me with a pointer to that policy or guideline. And you're still unresponsive to my points (a bad habit also evident in your interaction with Andrevan in the RfC). (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 10:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Another concern. Those changes, directs a reader to sections within the article. This can be initially confusing, as (for myself), I first thought I was directed to different (though related) articles. GoodDay (talk) 09:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

How long did it take you to overcome your initial confusion? If the concept were implemented at other articles, would you be initially confused at each of them? Anyway, that's the kind of issue you should have raised before starting the RfC, per RFCBEFORE. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

It's a section symbol. You should expect it to lead to a section in the same document/page, and you probably will, after the first click on one. We want readers to read the body and not be sent off to another WP page (that may or may not contain reliable information) or an external source first. The lead summarizes the body which has greater detail and the reliable sources the content is based upon. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Life is confusing. Squigglies are not. A single editor mid-way on their squiggly learning curve is not going to reverse innovation and progress. Maybe consult a typographer for more visually appealing forms of squiggly? SPECIFICO talk 12:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237, Just a reminder, WP:NPA: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  Bob, you've been around long enough to know the difference between attacking an editor (not OK) and criticizing their behavior or actions (not only OK but a routine and necessary part of editing). I would violate NPA if I called an editor an incurable incompetent who really should consider retiring (for example), and I don't think I've ever said anything remotely like that in nine years of editing. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• I don't like them either, and now that it has been challenged by several editors, it needs to go back to the status quo so an RFC can formalize the consensus. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  The effect of that old status quo was to cast doubt on what a small minority of editors believe is contentious content -- despite such content being verified by the overwhelming weight of RS references. The squigglies -- or whatever symbol is ultimately used to ease the burden on dissenters' eyes -- are the best way we have of providing the full context and RS sourcing to our readers. A second dissent from our recently established consensus to squiggle is no more valid than the first dissent. The time to present that concern has passed. SPECIFICO talk 14:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  If clutter is what you're looking to avoid, I think 35 section signs makes more of a mess than the status quo of inline citations. Maybe it's because it's not established, but my eyes skip over the citation symbol, and are drawn to the section symbols dotting the lead. However, I fully support the idea.

  Also, the fact that the consensus was established recently does not mean that it cannot be challenged. Obviously, we've got to remember that articles are much more visible than talk pages, and the lead is much more visible than the body of the article. People who wouldn't normally look at the talk page saw the lead and were like "what the &#$% is this cursed dollar sign thing" and came here.

  As such, I disagree. Each and every "dissent" is valuable and valid. I don't think that the time to present that concern has passed. The time to present the concern is now. As I said, not everyone jumps to the talk page. Not everyone (basically no one) was aware of this change. Now they see it, now they don't agree with it, now they come here. If, for example, we had created an RfC, it might be different, but to expect people to have been aware of a relatively short-lived talk page discussion, and then to say that since they weren't aware of it, their opinion isn't valid, seems unfair in my eyes. Cessaune (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm happy you have decided the time to present that concern has passed, but consensus can change at any time. If a wide variety of editors agree with the change that's fine, but it doesn't appear this was reviewed by enough editors to reach that standard. Nemov (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  People who wouldn't normally look at the talk page saw the lead and were like "what the &#$% is this cursed dollar sign thing" and came here. -- Except that actually, that is not what happened. Our two dissents come from editors who are watching this article all the time and who have separate but related concerns with NPOV and what they consider mainstream sourcing. SPECIFICO talk 19:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  What I said still stands. Cessaune (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  We very rarely relitigate a recently settled issue, especially when no substantive unidentified problem is articulated. SPECIFICO talk 19:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  Pros:

  • Instant jump to sections of the article makes it much easier to navigate longer articles like this one (this is an important one)
  • Reduces the previous redundancy of using normal inline citations in the lead

  Cons:

  • Harder to read than normal inline citations
  • Clutters the lead in what I think is a more annoying way than normal citations
  • Mildly hard to press on a phone (I tested it)
  • Concerns over browser/text-to-speech compatibility
  • Benefit diminishes the shorter the article gets

  Let me ask you a question—is this an improvement over normal inline citations in the lead? Honestly, I think the backlash is good. Isn't that what you wanted when you did it and left it there for other editors to notice? Cessaune (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  This is nonsense, as you clearly know given your extensive comments on exactly such processes at the Assange page, and many others (you are actively relitigating a close you didn’t like at the Biden laptop page too). 5 people can’t decide something in a 3 day discussion and prevent a larger discussion from taking place once more editors become aware of the issue. I think a formal RFC needs to happen here for this change. Should we workshop some proposed wording? Mr Ernie (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• This change should have reached out to a wider list of editors before being implemented. There's nothing wrong with being bold, but I would oppose this new style guideline. The consensus can change. This style is not an improvement. Nemov (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• The use of squiggles in the lead should be reverted while wider community consensus is sought. The squiggles are distracting and are not an improvement. There are serious concerns in regards to MOS:ACCESSIBILITY for our visually impaired readers and how visually impaired text reading software will interpret them. --Guest2625 (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: I've already commented that I don't have much of an opinion on these squiggles, but I understand that there are valid, respectable positions on both sides. It's standard practice on Wikipedia that when a content dispute is happening for the status quo ante bellum to stand. Since these are a recent addition, I think it would be the right decision for the squiggles to be removed until a consensus for them can be established in a RfC. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 00:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
• Original version restored. I have self-reverted and restored the previous version until the kerfuffle is settled. Now we have at least seen how it looks (much cleaner) and how it works (very well). This will be developed further and brought to the community later. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. I can live with a lead with the current bare minimum of Wikilinks, as it is now. So much easier on the eyes (as is the version with the blue superscript section signs, IMO) than the former MOS:SEAOFBLUE. Adding cites would in no way improve the lead but rather add more clutter than the delicate silcrows and, to quote GoodDay (ARE YOU GOING TO WITHDRAW THAT ILL-BEGOTTEN RfC? sorry for shouting but you haven't responded to several suggestions that you do withdraw), optical distractions. But how long will it be before someone reverts the page to that former state or editors start adding wikilinks to one of the 1001 DT subpages or random WP pages for words that belong in a dictionary rather than in an encyclopedia, with the argument that this is how it’s been always done and/or this is how it’s done on other pages? Leaves no room for improvement or evolution. Adding the section signs wasn’t done surreptitiously in the dead of night. There was a lengthy discussion involving seven editors over two days, a demonstration of what the change would look like, and a total of three days when the links were placed, targeting the appropriate body sections. Please, take a look at the lead before, during (1), during (2), and after. Signing with four squiggles (enough with the squigglies, already), Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Apropos of SEAOFBLUE: "Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist." This isn't strictly SOB, but five Wikilinks in one sentence with five other — and much shorter — words and three commas sure looks a heck of a lot like it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Recapping the purpose of the section sign^§:

1. Keep readers on the vetted WP page and link to the respective detailed body section with the reliable sources for more information instead of sending them off to another WP page whose contents we haven't vetted.
2. Eliminate the need for cites in the lead.
3. Make the lead less choppy to read. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

These are valid points for wanting ref section links. My concern, as noted in the RFC, was similarly in regards to point 3. A smooth read for the reader is important. The current section links, however, do not allow the reader the choice to see what section they are going to be taken to; therefore, it would be better if the section link was placed in a ref link. This would allow the reader a preview of the section title and choice of whether to head there or continue reading the lead. Here is an example of such ref section links:

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

--Guest2625 (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, for MOS:ACCESSIBILITY concerns and visual uniformity the note scripts should always be placed in square brackets. Similarly, for visual aesthetics the font of the square bracket notes should be the same size that is "small". One possibility for the notes would be to program them to take the number from the table of contents (toc). An example of how such notes would look keeping the squiggle section symbol would be as follows:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician,^[§4] media personality,^[§3] and businessman^[§2] who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.

These notes would retain their ability to have a preview of the section heading so the reader could decide if they wished to go to that section. This change in appearance of notes is more radical and would need wider input and support from the community. I'm eager to see the prototype designs that you and the template editors come up with. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I added [§n], [§n.n], and [§n.n.n] style notes to the third paragraph. Even if we lose the "§", that's still a massive insertion of text, and each one is creates a ref note, if I'm not mistaken. (Also, I couldn't get them to work, or keep a paragraph break between the third and fourth paragraph — no idea what I did wrong.) You can also preview ^§ in the bottom left of the window, at least for Firefox and Chrome. The preview doesn't work on Safari but that may be a problem of settings. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

At a time of Valjean's choosing, Val has agreed to open an RFC on the proposed changes, at WP:Village Pump (proposals). -- GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Potential RfC

If this has reached a stalemate, it seems like it has to me, is a RfC needed here? Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 04:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

No. I have already reverted (see above), plus there is a faulty RfC elsewhere. The issue is dead for now. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

If Valjean (or anybody else) brings up this topic again, with a new version or modified version, in mind? I'm hoping they'll open up an RFC on it, in a venue of their choosing. GoodDay (talk) 09:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Trump's reaction to COVID-19 in lead sentence

This was brought up before but ultimately got swallowed by the "is Trump a terrorist" thread...

I don't like this sentence: He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials in his messaging, and promoted misinformation about unproven treatments and the need for testing.

After reading the sources, is seems like they talk about all these things Trump should have done without actually commenting on the political practicality of it, the economic praticality. Trump probably should've reacted faster, but who's to say he reacted slowly? How do we even define slowly? This is why I want to change the sentence to: His response to and handling of the COVID-19 pandemic was often criticized, as he contradicted many recommendations from health officials in his messaging and promoted misinformation about unproven treatments and the need for testing. (I would get rid of the ignored part, as ignoring a recommendation is the same thing as contradicting it, right?) https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/04/16/trumps-handling-of-coronavirus-outbreak/ Cessaune (talk) 03:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Trump told Woodward. Multiple RS for slowly. SPECIFICO talk 04:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

So Trump didn't react slowly, his reaction was characterized as being slow. Cessaune (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

What? SPECIFICO talk 10:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Contradicting and ignoring are not synonymous. Condradict means doing/asserting the opposite, ignoring is intentionally not doing/asserting something. otherwise I'd support this change. I've always thought the "reacted slowly" verbiage was weird. Anon0098 (talk) 05:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Your source is a Pew publication on public opinion polling conducted April 7–12, 2020. The lead sentence summarizes the long body section with some 70 RS, sources about what Trump and his administration did and failed to do. This is one of them, dated April 19, 2020, on the slow reaction: But from the first international reports of the virus’ appearance in China in late December until Trump declared a nationwide emergency in mid-March, his administration delayed or bungled basic but crucial steps to contain the spread of infections and prepare the country for a pandemic, according to a Times review of internal government records and interviews with administration officials and outside experts. In that key early period, many of the Trump presidency’s most deeply ingrained characteristics — its distrust of the federal bureaucracy, internal personality conflicts, lack of a formal policymaking process and Trump’s own insistence on controlling the public message — severely hampered the federal response, according to current and former White House officials and public health experts. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

It's a good source, but I still don't see how we can directly state that it was slow. I think a sentence starting with Trump's response to the COVID-19 pandemic was often characterized as slow would fit better, if nothing at all. Cessaune (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Because it was slow and negligent. The slow wording is the unfortunate result of a few obstinate POV editors from a long ago who tried to whitewash the Covid content. There is plenty of sourcing to say "Trump's response to Covid was a willful, murderous disregard of the advice he received from medical, national security, and domestic policy advisors in an irrational attempt to promote his personal and political standing..." But we currently shy away from such wording in this article. Any further discussion would need a specific proposal for an alternative to the "slow..." thing. SPECIFICO talk 01:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

My alternate wording is His response to and handling of the COVID-19 pandemic was often criticized, as he ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials in his messaging and promoted misinformation about unproven treatments and the need for testing. Cessaune (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

My previous response was intended to say that is a non-starter, because it makes it sound as if this is a matter of opinion by a smattering of critics. Fails NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 03:07, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Hmm.

Here are two sources already in the article that refer to public opinion:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/warning-signs-flash-trump-wisconsin-pandemic-response-fuels-disapproval-n1232646

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/deep-skepticism-trumps-coronavirus-response-endures-poll/story?id=72974847

I think we need to talk about the public, as this is an issue that widely affected all aspects of day-to-day living, more so than anything I can think of in recent memory. How about a tandem response: His response to and handling of the COVID-19 pandemic was [insert adjective, widely?] condemned by both the media and the public, as he often downplayed or dismissed the danger of the virus, ignored and contradicted recommendations from health officials in his messaging, and promoted misinformation about unproven treatments and the need for testing. Cessaune (talk) 04:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Why so?

In this rule, you say about verifiability, not truth (?)! But why don't you follow that?

You have said Trump lost but falsely claimed victory or something like that? Why falsely? how do you know the Truth? We know truth only with Jesus our LORD! On wikipedia, you quote things! How did you compute that Trump is right or wrong? At least quote one decisive court decision there! Thanx! 88.155.31.51 (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Because RS say it, thus it passes wp:v. Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Please keep your personal religion out of here. It is not relevant, and frankly insulting to a significant percentage of editors. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

"We know truth only with Jesus our LORD! " How do you know that Jesus existed, and the he is not a fairy tale character? I would not put much faith in tales of miracles and resurrections. Dimadick (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Lets not bait users or attack their beliefs. wp:npa applies to everyone. Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Well the user stated that truth lies only with a character who is central to the Christ myth theory, and whose historicity is in doubt. Dimadick (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but this article is not about them, him or that. So mocking it adds nothing to anything. Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

What is dimadick's historicity? It's not in need, you see88.155.31.51 (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

And nor is this, my comment to him applies to you to. Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

"undo removal from lead - why was it removed? "

Re [19] — It was a matter of judgement. I thought that the part removed from the lead was a digression and didn't read well. Here's what it looked like after the trim,

Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist. He won the 2016 United States presidential election as the Republican nominee. He became the first U.S. president with no prior military or government service. His election and policies sparked numerous protests. ...

Bob K31416 (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with removing the fact that Trump lost the popular vote - that's a pretty important fact that should be summarized in the lead Andre🚐 17:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Here's a possibility,

Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist. He won the 2016 United States presidential election as the Republican nominee without winning the popular vote. He became the first U.S. president with no prior military or government service. His election and policies sparked numerous protests. ...

Bob K31416 (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Andre🚐 17:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Nah, he lost, by a lot. There is a simple verb for "not winning". Why do you want to avoid using it? We can lose "against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton"; that's a detail for the body. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually, yeah, I agree with SpaceTime. Andre🚐 20:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

There wasn't a contest for the popular vote so winning or losing wouldn't apply. Suggest "...without a majority of the popular vote." Bob K31416 (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

He lost the popular vote. Per RS. Andre🚐 22:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

If one wanted to get overly technical, then nobody won the popular vote in 2016, as nobody gained over 50%. But, I'm guessing editors don't want to get that technical. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

That's not technical, it's incorrect. SPECIFICO talk 22:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The difference is significant to Americans. He won because of a technicality, even though the majority of voters did not want him. IOW, he was not elected by the people but by a rule. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Which “technicality” are you talking about? I’m not sure I get that reference. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The United States Electoral College. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Sadly, it is not a technicality, but a rather large structural impediment. Andre🚐 23:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's that big of a problem. 5/59 (the number of total elections) = .08, which could be better but isn't that bad. If every state dropped the winner-takes-all structure the percentage would be better, but without winner-takes-all, life would become very hard come campaign season. Cessaune (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure where you get 59 from but how many times was the electoral college antidemocratic in the 20th and 21st century? Anyway, there's a proportional representation across the board solution that one can argue is already constitutional under the equal protection clause, but would never get through the current courts. Many individual states have adopted popular-vote or proportional reforms, there's also the Electoral Count Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. None of this is particular germane to Trump's article but it's certainly relevant to state that he lost the popular vote both times. Andre🚐 23:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

59 is the total number of US presidential elections, as separate from US presidents. There have been 29 elections from 1900 onwards, so 2/29 = .7, which is similar. Cessaune (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Mentioning that he lost the popular vote is significant enough to go into the lead. Three elections between 1824 and 1888, a hiatus of 112 years, then two of the last four elections. Our source in the body mentions that two of the five were in this century, our text doesn’t. In both of those cases, the elected presidents were Republicans, and the margin of loss of the popular vote increased from 0.51% for Bush to 2.10% for Trump. In the last election, "just 44,000 votes in Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin separated Biden and Trump from a tie in the Electoral College." (NPR) Just think about that: 158 million votes, Biden had 7 million (over 4%) more votes than Trump, winning the majority and not just a plurality of the votes cast, and Trump could still have been elected president with the Republican majorities in 26 state congressional delegations. (I know, not a forum.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

We don't mention " that two of the five were in this century" because that's just not true. The elections in question occurred in 2000 and 2016. Only one of those years falls within the 21st century. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I stand corrected — two of the five occurred in the last 22 years. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Stunningly wrong take. One can win a plurality or a majority or a supermajority. Trump lost all of the above. Andre🚐 22:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Since the RS [20] supports lost, would the following work?

He won the 2016 United States presidential election as the Republican nominee but lost the popular vote.

Bob K31416 (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

That works for me. Andre🚐 23:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I want us to talk about how the fact that he lost the popular vote itself sparked protests, which is something that is not talked about in either the lead or the article but can be found in Protests against Donald Trump. Cessaune (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to drop the "against Hillary Clinton" part. Trump's entire electoral identity revolved about opposing Clinton, to the exclusion of anything of much substance. The main refrain during the campaign was lock her up, even. Zaathras (talk)

They both had become the presumptive candidates of their parties by April 2016. That's when Trump started calling Clinton "crooked Hillary". Some time after that came the "Lock her up" chants although it's unkown exactly how, when, and where they started. If the opponent had been someone else, there would have been other nicknames and other chants. That's Trump's style, those are his fans reacting to him, and he to them, repeat. I don't see why the opposing candidate needs to be mentioned in any president's lead with the exception of an election like that of George W. Bush, maybe. That said, I don't feel particularly strongly about including "against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton" or not. I just think it makes the sentence a bit clunky to read. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

No doubt the campaign would have been equally puerile if Bernie Sanders had been the nominee, but Clintonian hatred has a particularly addictive flavor, i.e. Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Zaathras (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a rare time (only time?) when Space4Time3Continuum2x has agreed with me and added some good points too, which may say something about it being correct to delete the Hillary Clinton item. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Investigation into Russia interference in election in lead

In the lead there is,

The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign but did not establish that members of the campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia.

I don't think this should be in the lead because it is mainly about Russia's activities: "established that Russia interfered" "did not establish that members of the campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia". Bob K31416 (talk) 01:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I've no objections to its removal. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

That a foreign power intervened to tip an election to Donald Trump is kinda a wee bit important to his bio, I'd say. Zaathras (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd be happy to ditch the part of the sentence after "benefit the Trump campaign", 'though. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

We can't remove this. It's very important that Russia interfered to benefit his residency. Cessaune (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The item occurs in the third paragraph of the lead. Here are the subjects of the sentences in the paragraph along with the item under discussion.

1. Trump's political positions

2. Trump won election but lost popular vote

3. Trump had no prior military or government service

4. Trump election/policies sparked numerous protests

5. The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign but did not establish that members of the campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia.

6. Trump had conspiracy theories and made false statements

7. Trump racist and misogynistic

Bob K31416 (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I object to removing this. It is important and relevant. There is a long-standing consensus to keep it. Andre🚐 23:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. This is the first time a president has been elected - willingly, knowingly, and with mutual advance planning - with the help of an enemy power. That's pretty significant. Also, if a topic is notable enough for its own section heading, it deserves short mention in the lead. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Keep this is a trim and fit version that was agreed after lots of discussion and alternative wording. The part I think could use improvement is that "did not conspire or coordinate" is based on technical legal language and is likely to be misunderstood by readers -- as Trump and Barr encouraged -- to indicate that Trump did not encourage the Russians or obstruct the investigation from a more severe finding that he indeed did coordinate or conspire in the biblical sense. SPECIFICO talk 00:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• I agree with Space4Time3Continuum2x that we should remove the part after "benefit the Trump campaign". ––FormalDude (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Agreed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

    Me too Andre🚐 02:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

    I think I agreed above, but did not say Agreed. SPECIFICO talk 02:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

    I disagree. If we remove the part after "benefit the Trump campaign", we imply that Trump/Trump campaign members conspired with Russia. Yes, he may have "encouraged" (depending on how you look at it), but conspiring is a far worse matter entirely, and I think we would be better off avoiding that implication. Cessaune (talk) 03:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

    I don't think that implication is made in any way by removing that portion. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

    Personally, I would agree with you, but I like the added bit of clarity afforded by the inclusion of the latter half of the sentence. Makes it so no one can whine. Cessaune (talk) 04:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

    The additional legalese makes it less clear. SPECIFICO talk 04:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

    If I remember correctly, whining was the reason it got added. It's a non sequitur. Interference by a third party to benefit one of the parties involved does not require the participation of the beneficiary. As hamstrung as the Mueller investigation was by Rosenstein's directives, it still came to the remarkable conclusion that Russia interfered and that the Trump campaign welcomed the interference. Remember Trump's "Russia, if you're listening" or Trump Jr.'s "if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer"? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• Delete — per my previous remarks and above description of the paragraph that it is in. It is about Russia's activities, not Trump's, and is a side issue about an investigation that did not find that Trump conspired with Russia or that Russia's interference changed the course of the election to arrive at a wrongful outcome. Also note that it is still mentioned in the body of this biography article, although it excessively digresses, considering that this is a biography. BTW it is interesting that this digression for the lead is pushed so hard but a simple, neutral and appropriate addition of Trump's birthplace to the lead was reverted. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

  Would you like to propose alternative text focused on Trump's personal actions, e.g. the obstruction documented in the Mueller Report or his public misrepresentation "no collusion" themesong? If so, please propose in a separate subsection. SPECIFICO talk 13:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• Idea - The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election. This is more focused on what the investigation found about Trump rather than unduly discussing what Russia did. What Russia did without evidence Trump was involved surely is undue in this lead. This article is about Trump not Russia. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 15:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose this idea as it heavily waters down the fact that there is evidence that Trump accepted and welcomed Russian help. Andre🚐 15:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC

The focus is how Trump got elected, and Russian interference helped, whether it was a little or a lot. The interference was also publicly welcomed and encouraged by Trump. I can't think of any other candidate who ever did that. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

If you think Russia interfering with the election to help Trump is significant for the lead then why do you want to remove "benefit the Trump campaign"? I'm just saying if you want to condense this for lead purposes, I don't see why we shouldn't focus exclusively on what the investigation found against Trump. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 16:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Clarifying. I wrote I would ditch the part after "Trump campaign": The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign but did not establish that members of the campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

That keeps the uncontroversial fact of Russian interference to help Trump in the lead while leaving the body to deal with the controversial and contested aspects of the proven and unproven ways the campaign aided and helped that interference. The lead is not a good place for that topic. It's too complicated. What's left in the lead doesn't imply any wrongdoing by Trump, so it should be fine. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I like that. Andre🚐 18:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Space4Time, thank you for clarifying. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 15:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I removed the second clause - I counted six editors in favor, two supporting removing the entire sentence, and two supporting keeping the entire sentence. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

That looks good. It's also less susceptible to controversy. The body can deal with that type of stuff. Nice work. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Although I still think it should be deleted, I suggest trimming it to: The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I guess I don't particularly mind that change. Andre🚐 19:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The investigation itself was important, not just the outcome. I would leave it. I don't think it matters that it was led by Robert Mueller, though. Cessaune (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I think we can continue much of this discussion below:

• #Trump/Russia in lead...context

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2022

I would support Wikipedia but you are not fair in your treatment of Trump. You also censor conservatives. You are too bias to deserve support. By the way I don’t like Trump either. 136.239.97.247 (talk) 02:47, 14 November 2022 (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. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Reminder to remain impartial

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.

---

Saying Trump was one of the worst presidents in US history, even while backed by sources is still a matter of opinion. What one expert believes is hardly a precedent for how Trump may be viewed by the country as a whole, especially considering how he may be viewed in the future in context with other presidential actions. I respectfully believe the line should be removed for its opinionated and frankly, rather combative content. 2001:44C8:428E:C2AF:38B1:F56A:84AF:483D (talk) 10:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not stated that he was. It's stated that scholars and historians rank him as such, and is fairly attributed. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

We had an RFC on this and there was overwhelming support for inclusion, as it is properly spelled out that this is the scholarly consensus, not Wikipedia's own opinion. So, just like with the other hundred people who registered their opposition, your sentiment is noted and also irrelevant. The sentence stays in. Cpotisch (talk) 11:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The article doesn't say "What one expert believes". The lead says: "Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history."

The references are surveys of 142 and 141 experts. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

We have to say this. We talk about this in every president's lead. It would be unfair to not include it since he is ranked poorly. Cessaune (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

References

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

Leadrefs

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:How to create and manage a good lead section#Lead section refs (leadrefs) development before a later discussion at the Village Pump. Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We could avoid all these problems if we adopted my desired method of writing a lead with Lead "section references". See Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section#Lead "section references" and see how they work in the lead there. They are added to most sentences or phrases in the lead and take one directly to the section on which that lead content is based, right where the citations are located. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC) If you think it's good, do it. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC) It would first need to be adopted as part of our PAG. I'm not even sure where to propose the idea for community input. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC) It's not an entirely bad idea, although it would increase the workload in an active article like this one. Section headings change, and editors rarely add the code to retain the old heading as an alternate target. There would always have to be people watching for broken "#'s" in the lead and fixing them. Unlike page links, section links do not turn red when they're broken; the only way to identify a broken section link is to click on it and see what happens. A template would be in order for ease of coding. This would reduce <sup>[[#First impeachment|#]]</sup> to {{leadref|First impeachment}}. We have historically had trouble making sure that all lead content is backed up by body content. A solution like this might make that easier, as the absence of a leadref would be a flag that someone should check the body (then add a leadref, add body content and a leadref, or remove the lead content). Since the "#" has only essay status, we could consider using section sign instead. This would be consistent with Template:Section link, as well as looking better in my opinion. If eliminating clutter in the lead is a main goal, I'm not sure that a bunch of #'s or §'s would be significantly less clutter than a bunch of [n]'s. But that isn't the only goal. I don't think you necessarily need community permission to do this. PAGs are supposed to arise from common practices, not the other way around, and common practices always begin with a single use case. Just Do It and see who complains. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 03:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC) Thanks for understanding my intent and for the constructive suggestions. Is there a project where experts might make a serious attempt to develop and improve a testable way to do this? I need to move this away from this page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC) I agree with Mandruss: go ahead and do it. Andre🚐 03:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC) I'm not sure what you mean by "testable". There's no question it would work from a technical standpoint, as we know section links work and we see this working in the essay. The only "experts" you need are for creating the template, and that could wait a little while to see if the concept flies at all without a template. I'd add the first one to get it started, but since my "retirement" I no longer edit AP2 articles and try to be logged out for any edits. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC) I'd be happy to help you set up the template @Valjean, it should be pretty easy. I set up a basic proof-of-concept here, let me know if that's what you had in mind. Andre🚐 04:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC) @Andrevan: For what we have in mind, see the essay that Valjean linked in his opening comment. We don't want something that looks like a citation number when it's not one. And the lead content will often summarize information from multiple sources cited in the body, often non-adjacent in the target section. Furthermore, your technique would require named references in the body. As it is, we'll have some cases summarizing body content from multiple sections, requiring multiple leadrefs in the lead; let's not make that worse by requiring a separate template for each citation. I suggest a template that does what I described above with the coding examples. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 05:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC) The one as used in the example above is extremely simple: <sup>[[#{{{1|}}}|#]]</sup> It's at User:Andrevan/Simple_Leadref, feel free to move or copy or edit as you would like. I was trying to come up with a way to automatically have it figure out which ref it is in sequence if you haven't named the refs. It can probably be done with a Lua module. Andre🚐 05:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC) Not sure what is meant by I was trying to come up with a way to automatically have it figure out which ref it is in sequence if you haven't named the refs. Your Simple_Leadref is the ticket, but we shouldn't use it in the article from user space. To get it into template space requires an editor with the template editor user right, and doing that before the concept is accepted in actual practice would be cart before horse (partly because of the extra effort required to delete a template). Just add a few without the template and see if it's accepted. If so, add the rest. Then wait a few weeks before having some authorized editor add the template in template space, and then convert everything to use it. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 05:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC) Yes I agree we shouldn't use the templates from userspace, I was merely demonstrating how it works, and feel free to change it around. Yes someone with rights would have to create it in mainspace, and I agree you could simply do it by hand for now. I agree generally with your idea of how this could be adopted. All I meant about having it calculate the sequence would be to number the links. If you use Wikipedia's built-in linking or references it numbers them for you: [21] [22] . I couldn't quite figure out how that works though I'm sure there is a way to do it, possibly through hacky text processing, so I just made the number a parameter for now. I borrowed the section sign idea as well for my example. Using the User:Andrevan/Leadref approach, the target is a reference superscript itself, which is how the backlinking works from {{reflist}}. This superscript links to the reference superscript named bar, but it also works for unnamed references as well . The trick is figuring out how to automatically update the numbers for named refs. I guess you can also call it a refref vs a sectionref Andre🚐 15:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC) I am unsure this will work, as you say in the thread above they will still object to its inclusion. Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC) In that regard, it may be useful to hear from User:SPECIFICO, User:Space4Time3Continuum2x, and User:Khajidha. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC) I just tested <sup>[[#First impeachment|§ he was impeached]]</sup> and <sup>[[#First impeachment|# he was impeached]]</sup> (§, #). It adds the § and # symbol, respectively, and if you hover over the link you see the section it links to. Either one would require an explanation at the top (Click § to view article section, or s.th. similar). I'd be all for it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC) Valjean, have you seen this RfC? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC) Did you notice that the text "he was impeached" was superscripted? Not acceptable, obviously. And removing the superscripting would put a non-superscripted symbol in the middle of the prose, impeding readability. I don't know why people keep trying to deviate from the technique shown in the essay, which works fine. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x, sorry for the delay in replying. I was not aware of that RfC. Thanks for the heads up. Here's the opening of the closing decision: "There is a consensus that self-links within prose should be allowed and that linking should be based on editorial discretion." I agree with that decision. There is a sentence at the end of the lead in the Steele dossier article which does that: "The dossier is a factor in several conspiracy theories promoted by Trump" A slightly related, but different, type of example is found in that article, where there are links between specific Steele dossier#Allegations sections and the relevant specific Steele dossier#Veracity and corroboration status of specific allegations sections, making it easier for readers to learn what RS say about the status of each allegation, which is often a mixture of opposing opinions and interpretations (when RS disagree, we are supposed to document both sides), but sometimes a clear "confirmed", "unconfirmed", or "disproven" exists. (I use synonyms right there.) Whenever RS appear with new information of relevance, that content is updated. (In spite of that, there are fringe editors who still insist on applying some synonym of "unproven" or "disproven" to the whole dossier and to all allegations, which is false and contrary to the treatment in RS, because a number of allegations are confirmed true.) This subject of "self-links within prose" is a tangentially related topic to this thread, so, to not create a distraction, I'll end my reply here. If we need to continue, maybe we should move this to a new thread. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

In April, as an alternative to citations, I replaced some of the links in the lead with links to the respective body sections and got reverted pronto. One of the arguments at the time was that "readers would probably expect to be taken to another article entirely." How do we know that? Has there been a poll, not to mention a reliable poll, of readers’ expectations? I don’t remember what I expected — other than more info — when clicking on an inline link before I started editing on WP. (Also, quite a few of the articles on Trump have a quality problem.) Another argument was not wanting "people confused if sometimes they click a link and it goes to another article, and other times they click a link and just jump around in the same article." Are WP readers unfamiliar with the revert arrow in their browsers?

MOS is style, not policy (It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.) And we shouldn’t presume that WP readers are easily confused or unfamiliar with the revert arrow of their browsers, i.e., less competent than us genius editors. In a lead and an article of this size, I think the lead should be a summary of article content without citations or inline links to other articles - want more info, look at the table of contents and/or click on the inline link to read the section in the body with the citations and the links to other articles (yeah, when pigs fly). The lead, not just in this article, seems to be turning into an article in its own right. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

That's a good reason to avoid a link that looks anything like a link to another article. A lone superscripted symbol (^§) would have only one use, to link from the lead to a section heading in the same article. I don't think an "explanation at the top" is necessary. I think most readers would figure it out by clicking on one of the symbols, and in my experience they rarely take the time to read explanations at the top anyway. With any luck, the usage would eventually become widespread enough that readers could transfer that knowledge to other articles, particularly the more contentious ones. We might add something about it to the FAQ on this page, but even that would have questionable value. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that leads should not link to other articles, and I and others have said so in the past. That tends to encourage readers to bypass the body content, raising the question of what it's for. Readers should be steered to our body first, and only then to other articles if they want even more detail. When combined with the lone-symbol leadref concept described here, a pleasant side effect is the elimination of all blue prose in the leads, further improving readability. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Mandruss, that's so well said. I love it. As much as possible, it should be "lead --> body --> other articles, but we can't do it completely. That makes so much sense. Using discrete leadref symbols would indeed help to eliminate many, but not all, blue links in the lead. There is a difference between a blue wikilink and "non-blue" lead content with a leadref symbol after it. We're aiming to reduce the number of refs in the lead. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I misunderstood and did this: <sup>[[#First impeachment|§ he was impeached]]</sup>. Is this the clickable section reference Valjean’s proposal is referring to: he was impeached<sup>[[#First impeachment|§]]</sup>? I’m not quite clear on the concept of where to add the symbol. The sentence in the example has six links to other pages (and I just noticed that two are MOS:SOB). The two linking to "event" pages are no problem but what about the other four? "Abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress" are also mentioned in First impeachment, of course, so the links could be located there, but what about Biden and the House of Representatives? (The specific charges could also be replaced by "two charges", IMO.)

After he pressured Ukraine to investigate<sup>[[#First impeachment|§]]</sup> Biden in 2019, he was impeached<sup>[[#First impeachment|§]]</sup> by the House of Representatives for abuse of power<sup>[[#First impeachment|§]]</sup> and obstruction of Congress<sup>[[#First impeachment|§]]</sup> in December.

"After he pressured Ukraine^§ to investigate Biden in 2019, he was impeached^§ by the House of Representatives for abuse of power^§ and obstruction of Congress^§ in December." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I really like this idea and this specific implementation. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Replying to Khajidha: I like it, too, and would be willing to give it a try. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Has this format been used in any other live article yet? Zaathras (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Not that I know of. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Replying to Zaathras: If I understood editor 161.97.225.237 FKA Mandruss correctly, we would be groundbreakers. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

An important concept to make this work best is my belief in a tight/mirrored connection between each part of the lead and each section in the body, IOW mirroring the ORDER each appears in the body. The lead should mirror the body, also in the order in which things are mentioned. Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section describes this. This concept IS NOT an absolute requirement for using leadrefs. I mention this just as an FYI. My essay deals with much more than just the lead or just leadrefs. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, groundbreakers. Is that how things should work, though? I'd think a new referencing system would start somewhere at the Village Pump rather than an article talk page that is only frequented by a handful of politics-oriented editors. There's also the "why" to consider, is this truly to inform the reader, or assuage an even tinier handful of gadflies who want every Trump-critical thing in the lede referenced? Zaathras (talk)

I have asked about a better place to do this. It has implications and usefulness in myriad articles. It just happened to start as a discussion here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Quoting Mandruss again: Readers should be steered to our body first, and only then to other articles if they want even more detail. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I did the deed, per Just add a few without the template and see if it's accepted. What's the worst than can happen? I get reverted, and it's not as if that would be a new experience. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

"(Replacing Wikilinks with section references — see discussion at Talk)" That's an application of Mandruss's idea about fewer blue links, whereas my idea of leadrefs is to substute them for actual citation references. These are two different concepts. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

For goodness sake folks. Don't re-add those again. They're visually distracting. At least open an RFC on it, rather then making such big changes. GoodDay (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

There was a consensus to include them. A single editor comes along and says they don't like it? Still had a consensus to add them. Andre🚐 01:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I've opened an RFC on this topic. It's too big a change to implement, with the support about 'five' editors. GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Editing to keep open - status unclear, to be continued? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The topic has been put on hold, for now. GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)