This is an archive of past discussions about Donald Trump. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
A sentence in the lead has been edited as follows: “A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump, but did not establish that the Trump campaign was involved.” I disagree with that edit, and find it quite preposterous actually. Without the last few stricken words, there is a strong implication that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian interference.
Per the lead of our article about the Mueller special counsel investigation, the report explicitly said that "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities". NPOV requires that this finding of the Report be briefly summarized in our lead. It is this kind of slanted and selective editing that misleads readers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Almost identical discussions hereand here failed. My take is, we need more editors to enter this discussion and then we should lock in the text with the rest of the consensus. IMO reverting would be fine but I also think that any short discussion just kicks the can down the road yet again. If editors had taken more responsibility in previous discussions we wouldn't have to worry about this. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks User:Pecopteris and User:GordonGlottal for you opinions about this. So we have unanimity of three editors here at the talk page for restoring the removed text, but the question remains whether it might be better to somehow lock in a more durable consensus in the list of consensus items at the top of this talk page. User:Mandruss, you’re the guru here on such procedural matters, how do you think this matter should be handled procedurally? Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
lock in a more durable consensus - A list item doesn't make a consensus more durable. It makes it easier to remember and easier to find in the archive. "rv per current consensus item [x]" carries no more weight than "rv per [archived discussion]". We don't want to list every little consensus; if we did, the list would be hundreds of items long. So, one important question is how likely it is that we will need to remember and find the consensus in the future. As to this particular issue, I lack an opinion on that question. ―Mandruss☎00:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the procedural information. I think the search engine for the talk page archives is pretty good, so I will go ahead and restore the deleted text, and if anyone wants to try adding a consensus item to the top of this talk page then I would likely support that as well. Incidentally, is there a way for a user to be automatically notified whenever an RFC. is opened at this talk page? I feel obliged to get more involved in them, but find it difficult to constantly monitor this page. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Mandruss is of course correct that listing it is just for convenience. I didn't mean that we specifically need to list it. What we need is to establish a consensus, which neither of the previous discussions managed. This discussion is spiraling into another big fight—we must make sure that this time it's productive. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I have restored the version without the additional words "but did not establish that the Trump campaign was involved." My edit summary: "rmv misleading and inaccurate addition. What's left is simply factual, without adding anything that can be disputed. I will comment and explain on the talk page." The added words "but did not establish that the Trump campaign was involved" are far from what Mueller found: "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." Only those two words "conspired or coordinated".
He found a lot of other improper stuff from the campaign that helped the Russians. Mueller used some time to explain the difference between "collusion" and "conspiracy". He was unable to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt (largely because of obstruction and destruction of evidence) actual "conspiracy", but he found lots of things that fall under the heading of "collusion": cooperation, lying, covering up, aiding and abetting, welcoming, enabling, etc. The Trump campaign welcomed the interference because Trump hoped to benefit from it, and indeed he did. There was even some evidence of conspiracy, especially between Roger Stone and WikiLeaks, and there were clumsy attempts that didn't really succeed, so it wasn't for lack of trying that they weren't busted of conspiring a lot more. They were far from not "involved", as implied by the added words, which are now gone. That wording is simply misleading, so it's better to not say anything there.
I would have no objection if we say “but did not establish that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with that interference.” I also disagree that there is any substantial difference from the version you deleted against consensus, but I am happy to use the exact language of the Mueller Report. I have little expectation that it will be accepted here. (Because I know what Wikipedia has sadly become.) Anyway, I will take this matter to WP:BLPN because a number of editors here continue to insinuate in our lead that Trump somehow conspired≈/coordinated in causing the Russian interference, without even including Trump’s denial. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
The current version is the consensus version and doesn't imply anything at all about the campaign's actions, so leave it be. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
It is the briefest of mentions of a main finding of the Mueller report, which is also mentioned more thoroughly in the body. That's how we write articles here. It's also the longstanding consensus version, so why is someone trying to change it for no good reason? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
It's a very obvious insinuation that Trump at least may have colluded or cooperated with the Russian interference. But you seek to exclude the denial by the Mueller Report that such a thing has been established, not to mention excluding Trump's own denial. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
There isn't a single word that implies any such thing. Your fantasy is getting the better of you. It's the longstanding consensus version, so why are you trying to change it for no good reason? Consensus is against you. We have a super neutral and uncontroversial version.
Anything, the added words were highly misleading and would have needed context undue for the lead to make your addition an NPOV summary of the article content. SPECIFICOtalk12:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Here's the current version in context. It's the second sentence.
Trump won the 2016 presidential election as the Republican Party nominee against Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton while losing the popular vote.[a] A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump. During the campaign, his political positions were described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist. His election and policies sparked numerous protests.
If you don't count the insinuations made by the sentence, it's about Russia, not Trump, and should be deleted from the lead. This is like anti-Trump candy for an obese article that just loves to snack on it. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep it simple. We don't need to add more bloat to the lead with what the subject hasn't been shown to do. The status quo language doesn't imply wrongdoing on the subject's part. VQuakr (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC) ETA re Bob K31416: a sentence about how interference into Trump's election is most certainly relevant to an article about Trump. VQuakr (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Then that was changed, without any previous discussion or consensus, by the dubious actions of @Anythingyouwant:.
02:35, 14 July 2024: Anythingyouwant came along and changed that wording by adding "but did not establish that the Trump campaign was involved." That is very misleading.
03:25, 14 July 2024: Anythingyouwant starts a misleading thread on the talk page that does not mention that the deleted wording was what she had added without any discussion or consensus.
01:17, 15 July 2024: Anythingyouwant restores her deleted content, thus violating the "enforced BRD" provision in place for the article. The edit summary cites a dubious and questioned consensus of three people on the talk page. Few had commented, and there were concerns about this fact. Yet Anythingyouwant went ahead and violated BRD.
03:04, 15 July 2024: SPECIFICO warned Anythingyouwant about her violation of BRD and asked her to self-revert. Anythingyouwant refused to self-revert.
05:08, 15 July 2024: Valjean (myself) reverted Anythingyouwant's violation, thus restoring the longstanding consensus version, which is still in place as of this writing.
That version is about as minimal a mention as possible of what's in the body on that subject, which is what we do with a lead here. Any additions to that sentence just lead to grief, so we have not added more. It is a fact that the Russians interfered in the election to help Trump. Period. That is unquestioned by reasonable editors. The lead says nothing about how Trump and his campaign reacted to that interference. (They welcomed it.) It says nothing about their proven cooperation with that interference. The lead is silent on those matters, so Anythingyouwant's claims of a BLP violation are bogus. In fact, their addition misleadingly added content which mentioned those matters. It is best to stay silent about that in the lead.
The current, very longstanding, version is super neutral, so don't fuck with it. It deals with a very delicate matter in a wise manner. If anyone wants to change that consensus version, let them start a new section and establish a clear consensus of MANY editors, preferably with an RfC, but only after a good discussion establishes the need for an RfC. If the discussion shows a clear consensus to keep the current version, an RfC would be highly improper. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
As already mentioned above, this matter is pending at WP:BLPN. So let’s keep it centralized there until that section is closed. And you can bring your personal criticisms of me to my user talk, assuming they are significant. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Repeated attempts to make changes to the lead without consensus is not appropriate, regardless of what happens at BLPN. DN (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
The uninvolved editors at BLPN say it's not a BLP violation and that this is a content dispute that should be resolved on this talk page. You made the edit two or three hours after the shooting, were reverted about half an hour later, started the discussion on the talk page about half an hour after that, and then ended it less than 24 hours later by reinserting the challenged content. One editor agreeing with you and another one saying we need further discussion is not a unanimous consensus of several editors at talk page. I, too, find it difficult to constantly monitor this page but it's part of editing this page. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖13:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I fully agree with you @Space4Time3Continuum2x:. That "consensus" was rather dubious for such a radical change to a very longstanding consensus version, especially in the lead. Leads are notoriously filled with landmines, and changes should be very conservative and uncontroversial. Controversial changes should be thoroughly discussed so the change is backed by a large consensus.
BTW, I notice you mention the shooting. AFAIK, that doesn't have anything to do with this matter as it's not about the shooting,....BUT it may, as far as AYW is concerned. She did reveal a RGW motivation with this comment: "Maybe because misleading anti-Trump propaganda is a danger to his life? Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:26, 15 July 2024" Well, BLPN finds zero BLP problems with the sentence, and certainly no "misleading anti-Trump propaganda". That there was sweeping Russian interference is a fact. That it was performed to benefit Trump is also a fact. That is totally neutral and uncontroversial content.
It says NOTHING at all about the backstory, which is documented in several of our articles. Never in modern history has an American president first discussed his candidacy with America's enemies before doing it with the American people. He did that in November 2013, and the Russians then openly promised they would help him. They fulfilled their promise with their sweeping interference in our elections. Never in modern history has an American political candidate welcomed and cooperated with illegal help from the enemy of America, help that violated our national security in many ways and successfully installed PutinsPuppet as his proxy. Trump has never dared utter a single word of criticism of Russia and Putin. Never before has America been in the situation where the citizens of America's chief enemy often and openly celebrate that THEY chose and elected OUR president. They know what happened, and so do we. Trump was unable to hide all the evidence, even though he tried.
Yet, we say NOTHING about that in the lead, and AYW should be happy for that. It would just be undue for the lead of THIS article. We deal with it elsewhere.
We are not going to change our PAG just because Trump was nearly killed, bad as that was. He gets no more protection or whitewashing here because of that. We will still oppose such policy-violating actions by his fans. They need to take their RGW motives elsewhere and not pollute Wikipedia with them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: We say nothing that can remotely be considered an accusation, even though AYW insists we do. BLPN doesn't find any BLP violation of any kind. I'm beginning to think we can end this thread. What do you think? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
nor do WaPo, CNN or BBC; Reuters and USAToday do; we should say "injured" for now, until this is clarified.
NYT: "The Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies have not yet publicly confirmed that Mr. Trump was shot in the ear, saying only that shots were fired and that the former president was “safe.”" soibangla (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree—There is a photo by Doug Mills of a streak passing his right ear at high speed but it could still be shrapnel from some other object that got hit or of the wrong moment. GordonGlottal (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Really? CNN isn't saying it?
CNN: Former President Donald Trump was shot in the ear Saturday evening while speaking onstage at his rally in Butler, Pennsylvania
Do you have any sources contradicting? We have more than enough RS affirming he was shot in his ear in their own voice. KiharaNoukan (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
There is absolutely no penalty to being careful. No one has any information about what hit his ear; CNN is just making a different decision about how to treat his statement. Please immediately self-revert under arbitration restriction you may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message to avoid being blocked from editing. GordonGlottal (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Sure, and here are more RS on his ear being shot, not just CNN:
Reuters: Donald Trump was shot in the ear during a Saturday campaign rally, in an attack that left the Republican presidential candidate's face streaked with blood and prompted his security agents to swarm him
USA Today (which was cited in the source): Former President Donald Trump was "fine" Saturday night after an assassination attempt left him with a bullet wound to the ear.
Your edit summary's claim is factually incorrect, and now we're dealing with ad hoc rationalization that, applied logically, would preclude inclusion of any details at all about this incident. The only disputing claims given were from the earlier talk section, where the original poster cited twitter posts from conspiracy theory outlet Newsmax. KiharaNoukan (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
but others don't and "The Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies have not yet publicly confirmed that Mr. Trump was shot in the ear, saying only that shots were fired and that the former president was "safe."
There are dozens if not hundreds of cameras trained at the event, copious amounts of High-def video footage and photos, numerous journalists at the event, and analysts available to all these mainstream RS. They have described it in their own words as a shot in the ear based on their own expertise and newsrooms. As you mentioned, CNN even updated their description of the event after they were able to get new information. Inclusion of Trump being shot in the ear has easily met standards for inclusion. Is every detail in RS only made from Secret Service accounting?
Again, this is ad hoc rationalization that does not fit anywhere else. The only disputed info you have ever provided to these multiple RS is from Newsmax. How many RS need to report on this to overcome the burden of a twitter post you found that cites Newsmax?
Al Jazeera now as well: Former United States President Donald Trump has been shot in the ear during a campaign rally
I'll accept it when there is unanimity among RS, which there should be if it's undoubtedly correct
"The Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies have not yet publicly confirmed that Mr. Trump was shot in the ear, saying only that shots were fired and that the former president was “safe.”" soibangla (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
So every RS imaginable needs to say something because you dug around for contradicting info and came up with a twitter post referencing Newsmax, and saw that some other RS describe the same thing in a different manner, without actually contradicting. Do you have any RS claiming that Trump was not shot in the ear, besides a WP:NEWSMAX claim nested in WP:RSPTWITTER? Perhaps the reason that this is not mentioned with extreme specificity and consistency that you are requesting in this isolated demand for rigour is because nobody has taken the Newsmax claim seriously.
Axios: after former President Trump was shot in the ear at a rally in Pennsylvania.
if it is indisputable he was shot, wouldn't RS unanimously and explicitly report he was shot? I say we should wait until they do. soibangla (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
There is no rush to say he was shot or anything. We know he was wounded, reliable sources agree on the fact he was wounded, and there is no need to specify where the wound came from/how it came about until the sources coalesce on a cause of the wound. I have no problem with sentences like "injured during a [shooting/assassination attempt/etc as agreed upon], but there is absolutely no rush to say he himself was shot while that is not confirmed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
it is certain he was injured
it is not certain he was shot
some RS report he was shot, others do not
"The Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies have not yet publicly confirmed that Mr. Trump was shot in the ear"[3]
It wasn't a glass shard from a shattered glass teleprompter since it did not shatter. See my message at the end of the talk section "Trump was struck by a bullet" we say. You can see the unshattered teleprompter in this C-SPAN video just after the shooting [4]. As far as I know, the false "glass shard from shattered teleprompter" theory was the only reason for thinking Trump's ear might not have been hit by a bullet. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Doesn’t matter. We aren’t in the business of second guessing reliable sources. There is no consensus in reliable sources that he was shot - while quite a few are reporting that he was shot (and he himself is claiming that), there are many others that are not reporting that - and are intentionally sticking to wording like “injured” or “wounded” or similar until the facts become clear.
Do I personally think it’s likely that the damage was caused by a bullet grazing him or barely missing him but the pressure wave/heat harming him? Yes, that seems like the most likely based on my medical background. But my opinion (and yours) don’t matter - we follow the reliable sources, and until they have a consensus that he was shot (or the damage was caused by a bullet), we should not be reporting that. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
It's illogical to take the fact some sources don't opine on the subject as evidence against what other sources positively state. Besides, which sources at this point are holding out on calling it a gunshot wound? Riposte97 (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Given the conflicting reports regarding whether Donald Trump was shot in the ear, it is crucial for Wikipedia editors to handle these sources with meticulous care. While CNN initially reported that Trump fell on stage, other sources like Reuters and USA Today have asserted he was shot. This disparity underscores the need for precision in how this incident is documented on Wikipedia. At this point, much is rather unclear about the matter except that emotions are raw.
To uphold Wikipedia's standards of verifiability and neutrality, editors should use careful language when citing these sources. Terms such as "fell", "injured" or "wounded" would be suitable until there is definitive confirmation from official sources such as the Secret Service or law enforcement agencies.
Some reliable sources have unequivocally stated that Trump was shot, while others have refrained from making definitive claims. This complexity necessitates a cautious approach to ensure that Wikipedia articles accurately reflect the current state of information, while respecting the ongoing nature of the investigation.
In summary, by acknowledging the initial reports a and choosing precise terminology such as "injured," Wikipedia editors can maintain accuracy and neutrality in documenting this significant event, while awaiting further developments and official statements. Much exists which remains unknown regarding the event. Please exercise caution and restraint until we can glean further information.Hu Nhu (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
with the current level of information available, and the totality of how reliable sources are reporting it, it is an egregious error for Wikipedia to conclusively state at this time that he was shot. we should say "injured" for the time being soibangla (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
A few editors have claimed that this is a question of RS silence vs. RS saying definitively. CBS this morning here tells us It's not yet clear whether Trump was hit by a bullet or shrapnel. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I saw John Dickerson on that CBS TV show sunday morning and he talked about the shrapnel being glass. When I later found out that the glass shrapnel story was false, it didn't look good for CBS. In a later story, CBS no longer mentioned shrapnel [5]. Bob K31416 (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the exact article I linked to in the previous comment. It says It's not yet clear whether Trump was hit by a bullet or shrapnel.GordonGlottal (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
All the news I've been watching, has been reporting that the top of Trump's right ear, was pierced by a bullet. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, the sources have moved past the ambiguity. Everything I've seen coming out now agrees that Trump was shot. The government seems to agree that he was shot. Our article should therefore say he was shot. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Wouldn't the bullet have penetrated the brain if it had pierced the ear? The bleeding was picturesque but appears to have stopped by the time the Service Service hustled Trump into the SUV (Politico). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖15:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
If the bullet had approached perpendicular to the side of his head, it would indeed have killed him. Fortunately, it flew parallel to the side of his head and just grazed his ear. The angle is everything. He may have a little scar as a memento. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
He was treated by Ronny Jackson, his former WH physician, who said that the bullet was far enough from his head to not cause a concussion and it just "took the top of his ear off". I guess I'll continue to believe my lying eyes coz numerous photographs and videos show TFG with the top of the ear bleeding but still firmly attached to the rest of the ear. But, of course, now hidden by a large bandage. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖17:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
On second thought, maybe it was a miniature cruise missile? Anyhow, the Politico article likened Trump to a gorilla, P.T Barnum, Mussolini, and Hitler. Not something you would want to come across on a dark night. It reminded me of the monster from the id in Forbidden Planet and the scene where the monster was hit over and over again by shards of glass but kept coming. [6]Bob K31416 (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Considering an RFC to address Russia in the lead
Valjean, simply as a question of process I absolutely disagree that there is a current consensus. Previous discussions [7][8] rather obviously failed to establish one, and the text remaining relatively stable doesn't change that. This is one of the few pages with as many active editors as the noticeboard, so I don't think it was necessary to punt it there. IMO it's clear that we'll need an RFC (on this page) and I encourage you to not waste too much of everyone's time, either by letting the discussion die without establishing a consensus yet again, or by asking editors to pour energy into an endless freeform discussion, before calling one. Let's get this over with, accept the result, and not talk about it again for a very long time. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
We normally consider such an accepted and longstanding version to be the default consensus version, but if you think we should also hammer it fast with an RfC, I have no objection. I'd also like to see it listed and numbered in the first section. I fully agree with you that we don't want to keep dealing with this type of crap again and again. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
OK great. @Anythingyouwant thanked me for the previous edit so I guess we're all agreed. I know it's a little quick to escalate to an RFC but 2 previous discussions failed and you guys are obviously not going to work this out between you. Editor time is valuable. I suggest we offer the following:
Option 1:A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump.
Option 1.5: Previous, with the following added: The investigation failed to determine whether Trump had committed obstruction of justice.
Option 2:A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump and that Trump's campaign expected to benefit from its efforts, but did not establish that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia.
Option 2.5: Previous, with the following added: The investigation failed to determine whether Trump had committed obstruction of justice.
To refresh memories, Mueller concluded (Vol. I pp. 1-2) that Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. and that (Vol. II p. 2) [I]f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. I have also gone back to the previous discussions and reviewed all proposals and concerns aired. This is the best limited balance of options I could come up with. Even if this isn't acceptable to you both, let's please switch to a discussion of what the options should be. Thanks all. GordonGlottal (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
There’s an ongoing discussion at WP:BLPN, so I favor waiting to see what happens there before proceeding with an RFC. As for the RFC options, one major option is leaving the matter out of the lead, seeing as how the purported purpose of the longstanding language is not to say anything about Trump or his conduct, but rather to say something about Russia and its conduct. If it is included in the lead, I support being brief. If the intent is not to say anything in the lead about Trump or his actions, then we can rephrase it to more clearly achieve that objective. However, if the objective is to say something about Trump or his activities, it appears that would be very controversial because the Mueller Report neither found wrongdoing by Trump nor cleared him of wrongdoing (which prosecutors almost never do anyway because proving a negative is almost impossible). So here are some options:
OPTION A: Don’t mention Russia or Mueller in the lead.
OPTION B: ”Several countries interfered in the 2016 election, including Russia which supported Trump, but Trump is not known to have conspired or coordinated with them.”
OPTION C: Several countries interfered in the 2016 election, including Russia which supported Trump, but Trump is not known to have conspired or coordinated with them, nor is it known that the interference affected the election outcome.”
OPTION D: “An investigation led by Robert Mueller confirmed that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election in support of Trump, but Mueller reached no conclusions as to whether Trump or his campaign conspired or coordinated with that Russian interference.”
OPTION E: “An independent counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump, but did not establish that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with that interference.”
At this point, my first choice would be “A” because what Russia did was Russia’s choice, not Trump’s, and this is an article about Trump, not Russia. My second choice would be “C” because it lays out the facts in a neutral manner.
Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
There is no point in running an RFC which is entirely composed of options that would satisfy one party, and contains no options to satisfy the other. The job of an RFC is to develop consensus. If your proposal represented this discussion then we could work it out without an RFC. Re venue: this is frankly not a dispute for BLPN, as editors have told you there. In general this page has enough active editors that disputes should rarely be referred outside. I think adding an Option 0: No mention of Russian interference and Option 0.5: Add only A special counsel investigation failed to determine whether Trump had committed obstruction of justice. lower in the lede before the impeachments, could be a good idea. GordonGlottal (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
There were a ton of comments yesterday at BLPN on this subject, you’re right as to where that discussion seems to be going, but I’d like to see if any more comments are added there today before formulating the RFC. You’re also right that we should pick two options that reflect different opinions, and we have lots of candidate wording to choose from above. Feel free to amend your suggestions above using strikethrough and underline, and I will too. You’ve identified two primary suggestions including this one: “A special counsel investigation failed to determine whether Trump had committed obstruction of justice. My main concern about that one is that “obstruction of justice” is too narrow, and would replace it with “any crime” because that would include things like conspiracy. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Gordon, my main concern is that “obstruction of justice” is too narrow, and would prefer if we replace it with “any crime” because that would include things like conspiracy. Is that okay? Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
No. If we add anything, it's better to use Mueller's language, especially because "crimes" is too vague and is precisely the thing Mueller was not allowed to find. Even if he had found a crime, he could not evaluate or indict it. He could only collect evidence and let Congess decide if it was a crime, which the GOP controlled Congress would not do. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I stated my concern, and described a way to address it. You disagree with the way I proposed to address it, so would you please suggest alternative language that addresses my concern? Reminder: my main concern is that “obstruction of justice” is too narrow, because it would not include things like conspiracy. Or are you saying that “obstruction of justice” is not too narrow? I cannot figure out what your stance is, User:Valjean. Additionally, Rosenstein’s order establishing the special counsel authorized Mueller “to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters” if the Special Counsel “believes it is necessary and appropriate.” So Mueller was apparently not prevented from prosecuting any relevant crimes, right? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I do not share your concern, and no one else does either. Your attempt at BLPN was solidly rejected. No one sees your claimed problem, so I suggest you drop the stick.
I have clearly stated my preference that we not get into the weeds in the lead of this article. It's too complicated an issue for the lead here. Such added content is undue in this article. Period. The mention we have is as short a mention as possible to satisfy the demands of LEAD, and (except for you) is so uncontroversial that it has been accepted as the longstanding consensus version. That history says a lot, and, barring any new information, I see no reason to touch it at all, not even to change a comma. Just leave it alone. It has served us well. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
If we added your mention of "crime", we would be going against Mueller's concerns that Trump may well have committed crimes. Trump was never exonerated in even the slightest of senses. On the contrary, justified suspicions still exist, and those closest to Trump say he did commit crimes. Your idea that Trump committed no crimes is not based on a reading of RS. That idea is only found in unreliable sources. In fact, your attempt here seems to parallel Attorney General William Barr's criticized, and failed, attempt to whitewash Trump. See the Barr letter. Don't do that. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, even though you have expressed that our sentence puts Trump's life in danger. That's just not true. We won't change our PAG to assuage your concerns. They are groundless. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
To say that I’m the only one concerned about the status quo is false, we had a unanimous consensus of several editors just this week for changing it (that consensus evaporated once you and a couple others got involved), and the matter has arisen repeatedly in the past year or so, as GordonGlottal has said below and above (with links). Thank you, though, for further explaining your position. In the United States, charges are very often dropped even though the prosecutor still suspects guilt, the reason being that the prosecutor has to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That would be no justification for a Wikipedia lead to say that a person was investigated while omitting that the prosecutor ultimately found no provable crime. It would be (and is) a gross NPOV violation, and I intend to pursue it here, I’m not carrying a stick, but I am carrying a perfectly legitimate complaint. It’s true that Mueller, even if he found a crime, could have kicked the ball down the road to Congress, and he also could have described the crime in his report, and the crime could have been prosecuted after Trump left office. None of those things happened, and yet you insist to insinuate in the lead that they may have or should have. That’s very bad editing, and there are ways to very concisely solve the problem. If, as you say, the current material in the lead is not supposed to say or imply anything about Trump’s actions, then it does not belong in the lead of this particular article, just as the present lead does not mention any of the other countries that interfered in the 2016 election. However, if we want this lead to say something about Trump’s actions (which it obviously does since we’re talking about a special counsel investigation) then we need to say something about the outcome of that investigation. Saying someone was suspected of criminal activity without saying that the suspicions could not be proved is absurd. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
You are, once again, conflating some of the many things we say on this page with what's actually in that sentence:
"a Wikipedia lead to say that a person was investigated while omitting that the prosecutor ultimately found no provable crime."
"None of those things happened, and yet you insist to insinuate in the lead that they may have or should have."
"Saying someone was suspected of criminal activity ..."
Where in that sentence do you find anything like what you mention in those three quotes of yours? You are fantasizing, again, about what is "not" there, not, as you claim, what "is" there. Just drop the stick. No one else sees what you see. We see what "is" there, not what is "not" there. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Obviously, there is nothing now in the lead about the outcome of the Special Counsel investigation, which overall was favorable to Trump, in that the Mueller Report concluded that no crime by Trump could be proved. This was a very historic event, and if you want to hide it from readers of the lead, then I very much urge that we remove mentioning the special counsel in the lead. A special counsel is not necessary to investigate foreign governments, so the lead very much implies now that Trump was investigated, which he was, everyone knows that he was, but you don’t want to describe the outcome of the investigation because you don’t like it. And you badmouth and denounce any editor who says otherwise. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
...the Mueller Report concluded that no crime by Trump could be proved. that's a truism because it was a presupposition of the Mueller investigation, but it doesn't convey any information about Trump for the same reason. The claim that the MR was favorable to Trump overall is a right-wing talking point but not true (and certainly not broadly accepted as truth). VQuakr (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I disagree that Mueller presupposed that no crime by Trump could be proved. That was one of the primary purposes of the investigation, and I am not aware that Mueller went into the investigation with a predetermined conclusion. In any event, before the lead is modified, it would probably be a good idea to make sure any change is fully supported by the article body. Likewise, before an RFC is conducted, it wouldn’t hurt to do a talk page survey to see if there is currently a lack of cobsensus. So that’s what I plan to do, first focus on the article body, then perhaps do a talk page survey. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
? You don't need to do anything anywhere else, because this thread is where it is already happening. Just participate here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
This thread is about considering an RFC. The people here mostly don’t think an RFC is needed or appropriate. However, a lot of different insertions have been suggested for the lead, and I have not settled on any one of them yet. I have to see which is best supported by the article body, and also whether the article body needs to be improved. Then I may do a survey. I still stand by my view that this matter is handled atrociously in the lead, and it’s a gross NPOV violation, even if we assume it’s not a BLP violation. But no such violation is needed to consider improvements to the lead, and to do so without an RFC. So this is my last comment in this section about doing an RFC. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
In general this page has enough active editors that disputes should rarely be referred outside. So why does this one need to be referred outside which is what an RfC does? And why now? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖18:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Outside input is almost always valuable. Also, having a lot of active editors here doesn’t mean they have the same political balance as the whole of Wikipedia. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Of course that’s the ideal. But a person’s attitudes of all kinds often come into play, even if they try not to let that happen (which many editors do not). Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Space4Time, what we need is the structure of an RFC where main parties to a dispute stop going in circles and reformulate the question in a narrow way that makes it easy for other editors to weigh in and choose one option for consensus. I am happy to just not tag it. Usually outside editors aren't helpful to contentious pages with enough editors of their own, discussion just turns into a partisan vote. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Gordon, I agree that we should try to solve this here, without an RfC. Only if that grinds into a deadlock, without a clear consensus, should we stop the thread and create a new one as an official RfC. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
It's very frustrating that two previous discussions, involving many editors, were allowed to trail off without reaching consensus. That's what set us up for another round of this. Editor time is valuable, and duplicating discussions is wasteful. Given the amount of effort that has already gone into this topic, we have a responsibility to do our jobs (reach consensus by whatever means) so that editors in 2025 don't have to worry about this. I think it's pretty clear that open discussion will not reach a compromise, any more than it did in 2022 or 2023, and the longer it goes on the less energy remains for arranging an RFC format. Sometimes I think people try to drag these out on purpose in the hope of fatiguing opponents, which may work termporarily, but does nothing to make the next time someone reverts this simpler. Which is guaranteed to happen. Thus from the beginning of this discussion I have been singularly focused on ensuring that this discussion actually accomplishes what the last two failed. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
2. Add to current version: "A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump, and that Trump's campaign expected to benefit from its efforts, but did not establish that the campaign "conspired" or "coordinated" with Russia.
3. Add to current version: "A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump, that Trump's campaign welcomed and encouraged it, believing it would benefit from the Russian efforts, but did not establish that the campaign "conspired" or "coordinated" with Russia.
Number 2 slightly modifies Option 2: above, which is: A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump and that Trump's campaign expected to benefit from its efforts, but did not establish that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia.
I predict that any addition to the current version will be extremely controversial, create a lot of debate, and will be a constant and unending target for complaints from readers and editors. I believe that's why it has existed, without any serious debate, for so long. That peaceful history speaks in its favor. AFAIK, only AYW has really complained.
I prefer we just keep our current, status quo, version. It satisfies our LEAD requirement for mention of what's in the body, but leaves all contentious aspects for the body and other articles. Other stuff, added to our short version, are undue for the lead and create more heat than light. The lead is a bad place to get into the weeds. This is not the Russian interference or Mueller special counsel investigation article where that would be appropriate.
I am a bit uncertain about the best punctuation to use. I'm a native American English speaker, but have lived in Europe for many years, where British English is spoken, and I also speak another language every single day. That makes me a bit "language confused", hence my frequent grammatical and punctuation errors. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I would tend to agree that there appears to be consensus for the status quo given the lack of broad support for any change. VQuakr (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Gordon, we would not need an RfC simply to satisfy a small and ill-founded minority view. Those previous discussions demonstrated the proposals failed ONUS. That is dispositive to establish that the added text would be UNDUE. SPECIFICOtalk19:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Obviously there are some outliers with a difference of opinion in how sources should be expressed. Nothing in RS seems to have changed much since the status quo was reached, so in my view, it's unclear why reexamination seems prudent at this time. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: I suspect you mean "the [added] text would be UNDUE." I have bolded part of my comment above to make it clear I support keeping the status quo version. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Whatever gets us to a definitive close is fine by me. I insist that we reach a consensus. I don't think there is a stable status quo. GordonGlottal (talk) 04:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
The current consensus is definitive. Please review WP:ONUS, and the many discussions of how it works, at the associated talk page. Consensus can change, but it's quite clear that it hasn't. SPECIFICOtalk12:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
A little history of this discussion. This discussion began with the section Mueller Report in the lead. Shortly after my message there, Valjean essentially ended that section by starting a new section History of BRD violation and edit warring over mention of Mueller in lead. Then Valjean suggested ending that discussion and it did. Then GordonGlottal started the current section. All of this has been in a few days.
So we have essentially lost the comments from the first section where the sentence was discussed. With various comments there I recommended deleting the sentence. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I believe this is the sequence of events regarding the creation of discussions. (If I missed something, call it x.5 or so in a reply.) --Super Goku V (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 August 2024
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Why do you write such crap and lies about a past and future president. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Your bias left leaning opinion is so obvious. It’s disgusting. 72.106.69.119 (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Template Subject Bar
Closing as the OP. Question asked, question answered — thanks. The template was an empty duplicate of Template:Subject bar - already present, with parameters linking the article to sister projects Wiktionary, Media Commons, etc. Eligible for manual archival anytime, as far as I’m concerned. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖10:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC))
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have re-reverted per process.[9] If the original editor chooses not to defend their edit here, I encourage editors to ignore this and let it die a natural death after 14 days. We don't all need to chime in to oppose a nonexistent !vote. Me, I wouldn't have opened this. ―Mandruss☎20:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Well that's a start. I am desktop-biased and mobile-ignorant. Perhaps other editors who use mobile could help us evaluate the need for this template. Compare the current article with this revision, which included the template. ―Mandruss☎19:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
The subject bar template does serve a purpose, but it is already extant in the article (near the end, just above the defaultsort). This appears to be the proper location for the template, and the existing template contains other relevant parameters rather than just the bare reference. I do not see any practical difference created by the duplicate template instance, either in mobile or desktop view, on my machine. VQuakr (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Hiding my face in embarrassment. Wondering if this is a good candidate for closure to allow early archival per #13 (just to reduce unnecessary TOC entries). It seems unlikely in the extreme that two templates would be needed or useful. ―Mandruss☎21:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Trumpism
Trump seems to be in too many self referential categories. The most questionable is the one called "Trumpism". This is labeled in our Category heading among other things "neo-facist". We might as well create a category called "deplorables" and place all voters who refused to vote for Obama and Hillary in it. Labeling thse people "neo-fascist" would not survive and BLP issues, labeling them such back door is even worse. I really do not think "Trumpism" is defined enough, and it clearly is not being subject to any NPOV or BLP monitoring, so we should go. Anyway we already have Trump categorized under right wing populism in the United States. Even this is a highly debatable Category that lacks clear definitions, but at least it is slightly less invoking the name Trump. The fact that Trumpism bin the heading talks about ut bring part of a widespread populist phenomenon, existing far beyond the US, suggests that we should not so narrowly name such things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I, for one, mostly ignore the addition and removal of categories on this page (just learned a new word: Illeists — something I would have referred to as the majestic plural or royal we) and categories in general. People born in 1946 ... who cares? Anyway, this discussion would be more appropriate on Category_talk:Trumpism. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖13:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2024
This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Edit Request: Donald Trump Article
Current text: "[Donald Trump] met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times but made no progress on denuclearization."
Suggested change: Replace with "[Donald Trump] met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times and made some progress on denuclearization efforts, as documented in the 2018 North Korea–United States Singapore Summit and the Proposed Peace Treaty on the Korean Peninsula."
Reason for change: The current statement is inaccurate. According to other Wikipedia pages, including the 2018 North Korea–United States Singapore Summit and the Proposed Peace Treaty on the Korean Peninsula, there was progress made on denuclearization efforts.[1][2]Samjdbets (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
"Trump said he was dissatisfied with the incomplete denuclearization offered by Kim, who demanded, in return, the full lifting of American sanctions on North Korea."
Does that sound like progress to you? It isn't. Kim just tricked Trump, and actually increased his nuclearization and testing of missiles. Trump violated a longstanding American strategy and gave Kim a huge PR victory, making America seem foolish in the world's eyes. That's what Trump always does.
Those of us who are so ancient we can remember the many summits, peace negotiations, and other attempts to get the North Koreans to denuclearize know that they always trick and fool the Americans. It is a fool's errand to negotiate with them. That's one big reason why no president has met with them before. Only Trump had the foolish hubris to think that his business negotiation skills, the kind that always fucked everyone over, including himself, and led to multiple bankruptcies, would actually succeed. He failed, as have all others before him. We always give them concessions, food, aid, etc., and get nothing in return.
The current statement is accurate, so no change will be made.
When are you going to correct the false information on Donald Trump of Russian collusion" during the 2016 presidential election. That FALSE INFORMATION has been debunked and needs to be removed from this site. 2601:5C5:4302:9270:E93D:E7BB:B0F5:4F31 (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I cannot find the terms collude or collusion in the article. What text are you referring to? TFD (talk) 03:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I only find it in one reference. We only write what Mueller said:
A redacted version of the report, publicly released in April 2019, found that Russia interfered in 2016 to favor Trump.[531] Despite "numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign", the report found that the prevailing evidence "did not establish" that Trump campaign members conspired or coordinated with Russian interference.[532][533] The report revealed sweeping Russian interference[533] and detailed how Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged it, believing it would benefit them electorally.[534][535][536][537]
If we want to know what Giuliani admitted, just read how he implicated the campaign in an effort to spare Trump:
Donald Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, has insisted that he “never said there was no collusion” between Trump’s 2016 presidential election campaign and Russia – only that Trump himself was not involved. The former New York mayor said he did not know if others involved in the campaign had worked with Russia. “I never said there was no collusion between the campaign, or between people in the campaign,” Giuliani said on CNN on Wednesday night.[10]
That's quite the admission. IP2601, in the future, be more precise with your words. Mueller was unable to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Trump's campaign "conspired" or "coordinated" with Russia. He specifically did not "exonerate" Trump. He did find a whole lot of bad things we normally consider collusion, such as cooperation, welcoming, covering up, lying about, secretly meeting with Russian intelligence agents, aiding and abetting, attempting to set up back-channel communication with Russian intelligence that the CIA and FBI could not penetrate (so foolish an idea the Russians refused to do it), sharing polling data with Russian intelligence, trying to shift blame to Ukraine, promising Assange a pardon if he would lie and say Seth Rich, not Russia, leaked the stolen DNC stuff, etc. The campaign did lots of improper things, and many were convicted and even served time. Of course, Trump pardoned them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
@R. G. Checkers: What is your evidence for this assertion? Details of the impact on people other than the subject of this article belong elsewhere, and redundancy should be avoided - if we call this an attempted assassination in the first sentence, we don't need to add that it's being treated as an attempted assassination. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to rewording some things like the redundant wording about the investigation, but removing half the subsection places this out of proper WEIGHT considering the significance of the assassination attempt. That's why I reverted your edit. The section should have a brief overview of the incident as a whole, which would include the death and two injuries. Trump's immediate response by raising his fist was directly related to the subject yet you still removed it, and those are relevant details that should be included. R. G. Checkers talk01:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
No, the article should not have an overview of the incident as a whole - it should have an overview of the incident as it relates to the subject of this article. The fact that someone unrelated to the subject died protecting someone unrelated to the subject is off-topic for here, pending further developments. And at this point in the unfolding narrative, a much shorter subsection is much more proportionate overall. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree. And I question whether it needs a separate subsection here. In my view the question is not how significant it is, but how much material belongs here. Certainly details about the shooter are not relevant to Trump's bio. ―Mandruss☎02:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Your edit summary just said "per talk" without link to the section, and there are five discussions about the shooting. I had forgotten about this one that started immediately after the incident, with editors saying "breaking news" and "patience". The next day I removed the subheading and shortened the text in the "2024 presidential campaign" section and was reverted less than an hour later. By now, RS have settled on "attempted assassination", and I think a five-sentence paragraph describing the incident in its own subsection is justified, based on general coverage. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖12:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
My comment was a tad misleading. I wasn't proposing adding more "fight" text to the article, just adding the archive url to my comment for readers who don't subscribe to the NYT. Anyway, I just discovered that we now have a Trump raised-fist photographs page comparing a Trump "raised-fist with Stars and Stripes" photograph to the marines planting the flag at Iwo Jima . Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖10:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
It was a discussion with very low participation, just you and me. Personally, I prefer the simpler Palm Beach, Florida. (Now that the Supreme Court has bestowed absolute royal immunity for official acts on King Former Guy, has Mar-a-Lago become the American Buckingham Palace?) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖10:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Who would object? Surely you jest. But it would make sense to have tried a bold edit first. Now we have an RfC, like it or not, and we know how hard it is to abort an RfC. ―Mandruss☎15:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
The left image was added to the section on July 2, showing Trump with the raised fist (caption as edited in a later edit):
Trump rally in New Hampshire, January 2024Trump rally in New Hampshire, January 2024
After the shooting, editor Nick.mon replaced it with the (more peaceful?) image on the right. I challenged the edit, and Nick.mon reinserted the challenged image instead of discussing it on the Talk page (Nick.mon, please self-revert and take a look at the active arbitration banner). IMO, the second image is not representative of Trump rally behavior prior to the shooting. Thoughts? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖12:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi! I didn't think the reason of that image was the raised fist, I just thought it was an image about his campaign and the other one was quite better. If we want to insert a pic with Trump raising his fist I'd suggest this one: -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Not super concerned about "more peaceful"/"representative of Trump rally behavior" and I do think we should use a higher-quality image than had been there. But we have him in a talking gesture for the 2016 campaign, so a fist, thumbs-up, etc. makes sense to me for variety. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Proposal
I prefer the additional information we get from the NH image (surrounded by his Secret Service detail, his fist in motion) to the image with Trump in high-res and the rest of the image blurry. We already have two pictures with Trump behind a lectern, so we can do without a third one. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖18:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
+1. The image that shows the crowds and the Secret Service and everything is both more representative and better for variety than just another picture of Trump talking. The later proposal is also decent, certainly better than Trump taking behind a lectern again. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Since the deletion by user:Space4Time3Continuum2x on 17:34, 19 November 2023 , the article claimed "Trump is the only modern U.S. president to leave office with a smaller workforce than when he took office, by 3 million people" without even mentioning the effects of the 2020 pandemic that had cost some 10+ million jobs in March/April. How obvious can it be? Shame on you for letting this happen, and going on for 8 months. Matthead (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
You are welcome to participate here regularly. "If you want it done right, do it yourself." Dropping in to shame people (your word) is not going to be constructive. You also lack citation for content that needs it—at least for the prose, and I don't know that the file description for the graph satisfies WP:V. ―Mandruss☎17:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I reverted a series of edits made a few hours earlier. The resulting content was based on a misleading interpretation of a secondary source, whose reliability I can't judge, and a primary source that doesn't mention the Trump years prior to 2020. Obvious or not, WP is based on reliable sources, and you failed to provide one. Also, Trump's presidency ended on Jan 20, 2021, not 2022. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖18:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Add Trump fist photo to attempted assasination section
It is already considered a legendary American photograph. The Evan Vucci photograph of Trump's fist in the air is iconic, regardless of political perspective. It captures his reaction right after the gunshot. It captures a range of complex details and emotions in one still image — the defiantly raised fist, the blood, the agents clamoring to push Trump off stage and, most importantly, the flag. That’s what elevates the photo. It is shown on the attempted assasination page, but it should absolutely be shown on his main wikipedia page nestled under the attempted assasination section. Can someone please add the photo? 2603:8001:B5F0:8370:D12F:13DD:9885:FCD (talk) 06:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
You might want to see In the Wikipedia article Trump raised-fist photographs the section Reception, which shows that the picture is generally held in very high regard. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Pictures, plural. The cited commentators are talking about at least two different ones, and the image that was uploaded to WP is cropped to the point that its own creator might have problems recognizing it. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC) The AP photo gallery. No. 1, 9, and 24 are close-ups of the injured ear - must have been a teensy bullet that "pierced" it, and the wound had already stopped bleeding by the time his handlers managed to wrangle him off the podium. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖17:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Edit removing parents, edit reverting removal. "Listed in the infobox for every other president" isn't a good argument, IMO. Trump's parents, as well as the parents of Obama, Clinton, Reagan, and Carter, are not notable in their own right. They got Wikipedia pages only because their son was president or, in Fred Trump's cage, because of Trump's "Apprentice" fame; it remained a stub until 2015. BTW, the parents' infoboxes list their parents, as well ... About the only recent president whose parents were notable in their own right was George W. Bush because his parents were president and first lady. Spouses, children, parents, relatives — seems a bit much. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖16:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
That removal was an error that was later reversed, restoring the longstanding version, which is standard practice here (both reversal of an error and inclusion of parents). Is there some special PAG that says we should make an exception for Trump by leaving out mention of his parents from the infobox? I don't recall that notability is a requirement for infoboxes, only for article creation. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't have any huge burden about this either. I just noticed that the edit summary seemed to be wrong, IOW an "error". I assumed that when @Nikkimaria: wrote "rv duplicate", they were talking about a duplicate of that information in the infobox. I looked and didn't see a duplicate there. Their edit actually completely removed all mention of the parents from the infobox.
I don't know of any consensus saying we are not allowed to use that parameter in the infobox. We seem to have different practices for different presidents. Although this is an "other things" argument, sometimes we should standardize things, so I believe we need a sitewide consensus on this question. Can you shed more light on this situation? I'm totally open to learning more. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I assumed that "duplicate" referred to the links we have in the "Early life" section. I think this is a content discussion that should be left up to the editors of any given page. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖19:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, if that's what was meant, it wasn't clear to me. I would agree that content in the body and lead of an article is a matter for local consensus. I don't think the same about infoboxes, since they are used everywhere. There should be firm guidelines for them that apply everywhere. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
On 17 July, editor Keivan.f boldly added the parent links.[11]
Twenty-one minutes later, Nikkimaria challenged Keivan.f's edit by reversion.[12]
Admin NeilN's suggested range for de facto consensus is 4–6 weeks. No other "authority figure" has suggested anything different, and we have historically subscribed to that suggestion at this article.
The parent links had been absent for more than 4–6 weeks, ergo the status quo ante is omission.
After Nikkimaria's challenge, no other edits should have occurred until there was a talk page consensus to change the status quo ante. No such consensus existed at the time of Keivan.f's re-revert, ergo it was a process violation and tantamount to actionable edit warring. I have reverted that process violation.[13]
No such consensus exists now, either; ergo the parent links should be omitted pending consensus to add them.
To date, Keivan.f, the editor who initiated the contested change, has not cared enough to participate in this discussion. Until and unless he does so, in my view, his position should not be included in a consensus assessment here. Edit summaries are not substitutes for discussion of contested changes.
His parents' names were included in the infobox for as long as I can remember. That is the status quo and there has been no solid consensus to have them removed. What possible justification could there be for omitting their names from the infobox when 'notable' parents have been listed in the infobox for every other president? Keivan.fTalk16:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I trust the page history more than your memory, and for good reason. Here is the article on 19 JuneHere is the article on 5 June, six weeks before your bold edit. No parent links visible there. Unless you can show where they were added during that six weeks and remained for at least four weeks, omission is the status quo ante. What possible justification could there be for omitting their names from the infobox when 'notable' parents have been listed in the infobox for every other president? Such consistency arguments usually meet with resistance ("other stuff exists") because two situations are rarely exactly the same. That's why our editors are humans, not robots. ―Mandruss☎16:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC) Edited 01:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC).
Yes, so their names were sitting there for years and just because somebody removed them and nobody opposed it for six weeks that is the status quo now! I don't want to go into much details but given that Nikkimaria was one of the architects behind removing the names of Napoleon's parents from his infobox I didn't expect anything different from her here either. I have yet to see what the majority of people think here. Keivan.fTalk16:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, so their names were sitting there for years and just because somebody removed them and nobody opposed it for six weeks that is the status quo now! Yes, that's exactly the definition of de facto consensus. I think you're catching on.And it was longer than six weeks; how much longer I lack the motivation to research. Could be six months for all we know. ―Mandruss☎16:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't mean it can't be challenged.
It was March 25 and it was Nikkimaria who removed them. And it was her who reverted my recent edit so I guess now she has the opportunity to clarify because that information is not duplicated elsewhere in the infobox. Keivan.fTalk16:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't mean it can't be challenged. Nobody ever said it couldn't be challenged. You were fine until your re-revert absent consensus for change. It was March 25 - Thanks for the research. That makes 16.2 weeks of de facto consensus, well over the minimum. she has the opportunity to clarify because that information is not duplicated elsewhere in the infobox. I think most of us understand that she (do we know they are a she?) considers the parent links redundant with the relatives link. She merely prefers the word "duplicate" to convey that. ―Mandruss☎16:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, I look forward to seeing their input here regardless. Because based on their logic, the "spouse" and "children" parameters could be considered redundant as well, since Family of Donald Trump covers pretty much all his relations. Keivan.fTalk16:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
There's one difference. The parents are closed chapters, being dead, while two of the spouses and the children are still out there on Fox, Newsmax, various right-wing podcasts, etc. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖20:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I mean obviously people don't live forever. That's no reason to delist them from the infobox. Based on this argument the name of his first wife should also be removed since she's been dead for two years. Keivan.fTalk23:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I have no objection to removing children and/or spouses on the same basis, though I can see Space4T's argument for keeping them. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Personally I prefer an all or none approach. I see no point in removing the parents but then keeping the wives and children there or vice versa. Whether they are living or dead cannot really be used as a factor in making the final decision either IMO. A dead person can still be a notable person. Keivan.fTalk13:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Okay, but given the divorce rates I'm pretty sure we have several men (and women) who have gone through multiple spouses (not that there's anything wrong with it). Regardless, if one's immediate family (spouse, children, parents) are notable they can be listed in the infobox, which is why we have those parameters in the first place. But given that we have an entire article dedicated to Trump's family it can also be argued that there is no need to directly list any of them (see Jane Austen for example). Ultimately a consensus has to be reached. Keivan.fTalk13:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Not really related to our argument here. I think Trump's parents are far more notable (known) than Melania's dad on whom we don't even have an article, but we still have her mom named in the infobox. Keivan.fTalk23:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I consider it a serious flaw in the system that status quo can be maintained by simply going silent when good points are made by the minority opposition. It may not be bad faith, but it's close to it and the effect is the same. Meanwhile, there's no workable alternative, no practical "rule" that could prevent it. (Thus it's less a flaw in the system than in the people using it. We all need to work at being more open to being swayed, including yours truly.) We've had more than a few RfCs over less significant things than this; maybe that will be appropriate here and I wouldn't oppose one. The numbers would increase, at least. ―Mandruss☎14:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
This may be a good place to note the differences between de facto consensus and talk page consensus.
De facto consensus may be challenged by bold edit, as in this case. If the bold edit is challenged by reversion, a discussion is required and no further edits occur until there is a consensus for change. Status quo ante (minimum 4–6 weeks) determines (1) what will be in the article while discussion is underway and (2) what will remain in the article in the event of "no consensus" on the talk page.
Talk page consensus may not be challenged by bold edit; it requires prior talk page consensus to change. No edits occur during the discussion. A consensus list item is not required (but one does strongly imply that editors accept that the discussion in fact yielded a consensus; absent closure, that may not be readily apparent otherwise). Status quo ante is not in play.
This is at this article, at least, per its history since about 2015. Absent clear and unambiguous WP policy, other articles may vary and "correct" process often depends on who's around at the time. The result is a lot of time spent debating process (with or without related edit warring) instead of debating article content. Our way is better. ―Mandruss☎16:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Incitement of violence
Under the main "Public Image" section of the article there is a subheading "Incitement of violence". Would it perhaps be more neutral to have the subheading of "Alleged incitement of violence" as, to date, Trump has not been convicted in court of inciting violence. He has been accused by opponents and others of inciting violence. As far as I'm aware, the accusation of inciting violence has not been independently proven. A citation in the subsection states that according to some experts "Trump's rhetoric caused an increased incidence of hate crimes." That is the view of some experts, but not all experts. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
As wrong and horrible as the attempted assassination is, we won't change our PAG because of it. Trump's rhetoric has often encouraged physical violence, even saying he'd pay the legal expenses of his fans who carried out his requests for violent action, and RS have documented that. On January 6, he was warned that some in the crowd had weapons, yet he demanded the mags that detect weapons to be turned off. Then he ordered that crowd to go to the Capitol and "fight".
These are not unproven allegations. They are facts. We document what RS say. Maybe he'll learn to temper himself a bit, now that he has felt the consequences of such rhetoric, but I won't hold my breath. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I accept some of the points you've made and I don't seek to defend the words of Donald Trump, but the word "fight" is not always meant in the literal sense of using violence. The word "fight" can sometimes mean confront / challenge / oppose / resist. Phrases such as "fight for justice" and Rishi Sunak recently saying he would "fight for every vote" do not imply violence. Perhaps Trump did mean that the crowd on January 6, 2021 should be violent, but perhaps he did not. It's not yet been proven in court that Trump incited violence specifically on January 6, 2021.
On January 6, 2021, Trump tweeted: "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!". He also tweeted on the same day: "Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!"
Trump had earlier said a crowd should "fight" but did not explicitly say that the crowd should be violent. It's not yet proven that Trump's use of the word "fight" was specifically intended to mean for the crowd to be violent on January 6, 2021, rather than the looser sense of the word "fight" to mean confront / challenge / oppose / resist etc. As per WP:BLP all biographies of living persons should be written cautiously, but there's no mention in the article that on January 6, 2021 he tweeted for people to stay peaceful. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
A politician saying "fight" is enough to accuse incitement to bias? I guess we have a lot of Editing of other politicians bios to do Jbole (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've removed this bit fom the lead per my edit summaries. Fortunately, nothing came of it except maybe better policing from now on. SPECIFICOtalk19:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NYT "Spotlight Donald Trump"
This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Edit Request: to add the Spotlight Donald Trump link from NY Times, America's newspaper of record, to External links.
Edit requests are for uncontroversial changes. Not much at this article is uncontroversial. Therefore I'm converting this to a discussion. In the future, please use the "New section" link at the top of this page unless you're pointing out typos, obvious grammatical errors, broken links, clear violations of consensus, etc. ―Mandruss☎20:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Not a bad proposal on its face. I logged out of NYT and clicked your link. I was able to view the "Spotlight Donald Trump" page. Then I clicked a few of its links to NYT articles, and all of them were blocked by the paywall. Therefore I'll oppose the proposal per WP:ELNO#EL6. ―Mandruss☎00:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Agreed that this doesn't seem like a necessary addition to the list per ELNO#1 along with #6 as already noted. VQuakr (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Images
Current images are not representative of the individuals current appearance. They possible (likely) have been provided by the individual or his representatives. They should be replaced with images available in the public domain which are representative of his current age and appearance. 47.154.123.149 (talk) 02:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I don't know about all that, but this is a biography of Trump's entire life, not a snapshot of his life today. There is absolutely no rationale for limiting the article to more recent images. Actually I wish we had more older photos, especially pre-2014.If he wins the election, his infobox image (at the top of the article) will be replaced with the new official White House photo, aging him eight years with one edit. That should make you happy, although I'm guessing his re-election won't. ―Mandruss☎05:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Shooter's name
Crooks's name has been added, removed, and added again. Since this article's subject is Trump, not the would-be assassin or the would-be assassination, I feel those three words don't earn their keep in this bloated article. The effect from Trump's perspective would be the same whether the name was Thomas Matthew Crooks or Albert Michael Benividez (apologies to any Albert Michael Benividez). If the attempt had been successful, it would (needless to say) have vastly more significance and that would be a different content situation. The entire section would be much longer. ―Mandruss☎20:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I could see including his name if he had been successful (or even if Trump were significantly injured), but as is I would agree that it isn't needed in this article. -- User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I know George Wallace names Arthur Bremer, etc etc. Other stuff exists. Please, let's not start with the apples-and-oranges comparisons. And, please don't point to wide RS coverage without explaining why we don't need his age, hometown, and a number of other things about him that have wide RS coverage. Not to mention things not about him that have wide RS coverage. It's just a weak argument. See first two sentences at WP:VNOT. ―Mandruss☎22:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I can't take a bloat argument of this caliber seriously. It's a sentence, max. We can trim somewhere else.
We include his age in the article. We include his hometown in the article. We include far more inane info—"truthful hyperbole", and whatnot—and a mention of his would-be assassin has wide RS coverage and the attacker has RS articles about him.
It's a sentence, max. No, it's three words. Nobody is contesting the rest of the sentence. We include his age in the article. We include his hometown in the article. Trump's? I was referring to Crooks's. I don't see why he's unimportant. I'm not saying he's unimportant; I'm saying his name is not needed in this article. The name is not the person—same principle as in the perennial mass shooting victims' names debate. ―Mandruss☎22:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
We don't necessarily need his name. But I don't see why we shouldn't include it. It's verifiable and relevant. It's three words of bloat, I guess, but, come on. That's hardly an issue. Cessaune[talk]22:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Difference in philosophy, again. No improvement is too small to make, particularly when it's an easy one to make. Given the extreme difficulty of the larger trims (the article's wikitext size is the same as in April 2021, and not for lack of arguing about it), we're left to the little ones. It's verifiable - See VNOT. and relevant. - How so? Does this article need to exonerate the 8 billion people in the world who didn't take a shot at Trump? ―Mandruss☎23:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
We don't have to include it just because it's verifiable, but I think it's relevant. I don't exactly know how to argue that it's relevant. I don't see a good reason to not include it, and that's the crux of my argument, which is a pretty weak argument all things considered. Cessaune[talk]00:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I was too kind. When we can't articulate why something is relevant, that's generally a sign that it isn't particularly relevant. It closely approaches "I just like it" masquerading as an argument. There, that's better. ―Mandruss☎05:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I also agree Crooks' name should be included (and linked to his article), I don't get why we wouldn't include it. If we're trying to remove bloat, I'd get rid of, "Trump then raised his fist and mouthed "fight" three times..." I have no idea why that's added there anyways? Come to think it, that whole section needs a good updating :). Hella say hella (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I'd get rid of, "Trump then raised his fist and mouthed "fight" three times..." I have no idea why that's added there anyways? That's about Trump. This is an article about Trump. Crooks's name is not about Trump, it's about Crooks. I hope this aids your understanding. ―Mandruss☎19:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
As long as he has an article, I can't see any valid reason why we wouldn't include a mention of his name and the corresponding link. Cessaune[talk]11:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Over the past decade, public mass shooters have won far less notoriety as their numbers have multiplied. Even some of the deadliest killers — the ones at Robb Elementary in Uvalde, Tex., and the Route 91 Harvest festival in Las Vegas, for example — are not household names. In a single week, Crooks's name has appeared in thousands of headlines as his image spread across the globe. Peterson fears that other disillusioned fame-seekers who once would have turned to a different sort of violence may now be emboldened to attempt this kind. "It has changed the course of the political conversation. It’s having ripple effects. It's actually changing politics, and potentially the election in some way," she said. "So, if one 20-year-old kid with an AR-15 can pull that off, that is something that's scary."
That's close to the "don't glorify the shooter by naming him" argument, often seen at articles about mass shootings. It's a righting-great-wrongs argument that I oppose, at least until MSM stops naming them in virtually every article about a shooting. Not that I don't need some help here! ―Mandruss☎16:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS argument that I agree with in spirit, outside the context of Wikipedia, but most definitely not in practice here on enwiki. We are an encyclopedia, and we are not censored. We have a pretty decent article on a would-be assassin. Why would we avoid mentioning the would-be assassin's name in the article of the could-have-been assassinated person if the would-be assassin has an article? I just don't see a good justification for this. Cessaune[talk]23:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
He's not a would-be assassin, he is an assassin — a man was murdered killed, just not the subject of this article. We at WP don't seem to be any better at censorship than the deep state or MSM are at censoring conservatives, who are complaining on CNN that the media is censoring them, what with our big, fat article on Crooks. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖13:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Would-be assassin is correct. The man who died, with all due respect to him, was not assassinated. I'm not sure if "murdered" is the correct word either, but I may be wrong about that one. Hella say hella (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
"Shooter" and "killed" are the appropriate terms for now. We don’t know whether he was a "would-be assassin" or what his motive and intent were. He was killed 26 seconds after he fired the first shot. For all we know, his intent was a mass shooting of people presented on a platter (bleachers) with Trump as a celebrity bonus. The incident fits the FBI definition of an active shooter incident, "one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area". All we know is that they’re investigating the incident as an attempted assassination and potential domestic terrorism, and that’s what our current text says. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖11:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Yea, I probably wouldn't use "would-be assassin" in the article when shooter works fine, but it's basically universally accepted by reliable sources, and the government, that Trump was the primary target, not bonus points in a mass shooting. Hella say hella (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Stands to reason. If I'm looking for a place to commit a mass shooting, I probably won't choose a place that I know will be pre-populated by highly-trained anti-shooter ninjas. Unless I'm like really stupid, and Crooks is known to have been smart before his "craniectomy procedure". Having said that, are we still on topic here, or having a friendly chat about vocabulary? ―Mandruss☎17:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Apologies if this came across to you as if we were just having a regular ol' chat. It appears the only two options up for debate are "shooter" or his actual name. I already said yes to using his name, and provided my reason, so I'll leave it at that. Thanks. Hella say hella (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
we are not censored.WP:NOTCENSORED is often cited incorrectly, but usually by editors with less experience. Per its very first sentence, it's about content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Nobody seeks to omit this name because some readers might consider it objectionable or offensive. ―Mandruss☎21:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
In my opinion, RIGHTGREATWRONGS violations can run afoul of NOTCENSORED simultaneously. I've heard many editors suggest that we shouldn't include something because it unnecessarily glorifies an act or a person who shouldn't be, not because it's not verifiable but because they believe the person or act shouldn't be glorified. In certain circumstances, I consider that to be an attempt to right a wrong by censoring, hence my citing of the NOTCENSORED policy.
Just cite RGW, as I did, and leave UNCENSORED out of it unless UNCENSORED says it can be used that way. It's more misleading than helpful imo. Much of policy is learned on article talk pages, and incoming newer editors may miss your nuance. ―Mandruss☎01:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Since the perpetrator has an article, it's a valid wikilink to add for readers to click on to find more information about him. I don't see a strong case for exclusion - but I also disagree with the perpetrator having an article, per WP:BLP1E - however it survived AfD so... Count this as a begrudging opinion that it should be included so long as the individual themselves has an article. If/when his article is merged back to the article on the assassination attempt (as it should be), then his name should be removed as it will be present on that article which will remain linked. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
We'll have fun trying to assess consensus with the presence of conditional !votes—unless the margin is wide enough that it doesn't matter. ―Mandruss☎04:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Eh, if it makes it easier (for the closer or others), count my !vote as an unconditional support - with the one caveat (not condition) that we should revisit this consensus when the shooters page is eventually deleted as it should have been in the first AfD. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support adding name back. I still don't get why we wouldn't add it? His personal article is pretty popular, over the last week more popular than the Attempted assassination of Donald Trump article (views), why make it more difficult for readers to get the information they're obviously trying to find regarding the shooter? The bloat argument is kind of silly, considering we're only talking about three words, and while I understand not wanting to give the shooter more spotlight, that's not really our responsibility. Hella say hella (talk) 04:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Support adding it back in as well. See WP:NOTCENSORED. Crooks is a relevant aspect of the assassination attempt, and his article should be linked to (without an easter egg) for readers to see additional information about him if they wish. Endwise (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
"The shooter" would be an egg. "The shooter", not so much. I have no problem with a piped link; I'm contesting the name, not the link. If the BLP gets merged, we can do a piped section link. ―Mandruss☎17:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Just to be fully certain, you only oppose the addition of the name due to a perceived lack of importance and bloat, but you're fine with a link? Cessaune[talk]00:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Sounds about right, although "lack of importance" could be changed to "lack of relevance in Trump's top-level bio article". It's not uncommon to make a distinction between the text and a link. I have no problem with making it easy for readers to access the shooter's details from here. ―Mandruss☎01:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Oh, you're probably wondering how it reduces bloat to hide the name in a piped link. I would be, too. I referred to wikitext size (aka file size), but only because that's the easiest metric to track over time (I still have the script that plots it on a graph). But it's mainly the rendered article that I'm talking about. And bloat is not my main argument; I'd be rolling my eyes too. My approach to ATP argument: "Every litter bit helps." ―Mandruss☎03:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Some people in this thread were saying that including his name is objectionable because it glorifies him/increases his notoriety. Endwise (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't yet see a hugely compelling reason to rush into adding the name as of yet. He was registered as a Republican, but apparently donated to a liberal turnout group in 2022. Authorities said his political views are uknown, and they have not determined whether his assassination attempt was politically motivated or if there is a more personal connection somehow. There seems to be no other connection to Trump other than being "the shooter", but more details may reveal themselves given time. DN (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Means and opportunity in search of a motive — have gun, won't travel. He made the $15 donation to the "Progressive Turnout Project" PAC on January 20, 2021. In September 2021 he turned 18 and registered as a Republican. Kind of put a spanner in the blame game works. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖13:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
If editors keep up the clear and blatant misapplication of policy such as WP:NOTCENSORED, an uninvolved, experienced closer will be required and I would expect them to discount those !votes. I will not accept a democratic vote under those circumstances, nor should anybody. ―Mandruss☎21:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
"Democratic vote" often refers to polling without discussion or argument, as at WP:NOTAVOTE. I'm perhaps abusing the term, but I'm referring to the very common situation where every not-vote counts the same regardless of strength of argument. "It's relevant" counts for as much as "It's relevant, and here's why" followed by articulate reasoning that is not completely incoherent. Absent competent uninvolved closure, there is no way to discard the former !vote or reduce its weight in a consensus assessment.Incorrect citation of a PAG counts for as much as correct citation of a PAG; all we need do is link a shortcut, any shortcut will do—and besides, PAGs are so complex, vague, nuanced, and self-contradictory as to make it often virtually impossible for the average editor to know what's correct application of them.A bad argument can be "effectively" countered all day long by any number of editors, but if the bad argument editor doesn't concede there's nothing that can be done; their !vote still counts as much as anybody's. There is not even anything that requires them to stick around to read the counters.Editors are sometimes swayed by opposing argument, but it's rare: the human mind is not designed to be changed—and many editors see being swayed as an admission that they were initially Wrong, meaning they must be Stupid or Incompetent.This looks like constructive discussion, and boy do many of us love it for the mental stimulation/exercise, but in terms of the outcome it might as well be polling sans argument; in effect, it's democratic voting. This fairly describes virtually all discussions that are not closed by experienced, uninvolved editors who are not afraid to close against the numerical majority where needed. ―Mandruss☎03:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
In any article, a reason for including information must be established. The fact that information can be mentioned briefly is unimportant. A good test is whether mentioning someone's name helps readers to understand the story. If the attacker had been a prominent person or someone known to Trump, then mentioning their name might be helpful. I would exclude someone whose only signficance is that the tried to kill him.
We should also consider news article about Trump. Do articles that mention the attack (not articles about the attack) routinely mention the attacker's name? For example, an article in al jazeera about the Israeli PM's visit to Washington mentions that Trump recently survived an assassinatiom attempt, but does not name the attacker.[15]
If readers are interested in the assassination attempt,they can follow the link to the relevant article. But the main article on Trump should only contain information meets weight for him.
As I indicated at the start, the name has been added, removed, and added again. I think this should have come to talk before being added again; I don't know that it makes a difference that the adder and the re-adder were different editors.
Neither inclusion nor omission enjoys de facto consensus status, since neither has lasted for 4–6 weeks (or even close to that). So we invoke WP:ONUS: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." It's widely accepted that, for contested new content, "no consensus" means omit.
I read the discussion as 3–3. With neither side having a clear policy basis, and absent an uninvolved closer, this is effectively a democratic vote (like many similar discussions). Obviously, 3–3 is not close to a consensus for inclusion. Include: Cessaune, Hella say hella, R. G. Checkers. Omit: Mandruss, Khajidha, Space4Time3Continuum2x. I'm excluding the adder and the re-adder from this count, since one should participate in discussion to be counted. Otherwise they don't have the opportunity to be swayed by opposing arguments. (I would view notifying them, if done by one of the includers, as canvassing; please don't. They'll probably see my edit anyway.)
Therefore I'm removing the name pending consensus to include it. We could debate what should constitute a consensus to include, but I personally would not be inclined to accept a margin of less than 2. I consider that reasonable, maybe even generous.
Reverted July 14 with editsumDiscuss removal of part of longstanding heading on Talk page. Unsourced? 11 sources describing Trump's misogynistic behavior. Misogyny: hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women; something (such as speech or behavior) that reflects and fosters misogyny.
If you want to use "misogyny" in the heading, "misogyny" should appear in the section and supported by use of "misogyny" in the corresponding source, which currently isn't the case. Otherwise it looks like OR. Bob K31416 (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
It is now. The quote I added to the first sentence is from the first cite we had in the section all along. I added a few more cites that use the word mysogyny; other cites that don't use the word still describe mysogynistic behavior. And the Mayor of London prepared a comprehensive list of what misogyny is, so I don't have to explain it. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖14:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
They are not ours, they are the opinions of third party sources. If you have an issue with what they say, get onto them. Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm copying my following words from an earlier discussion still on the page. I posted them on 21 July and there has been no reply to date.
This may be a good place to note the differences between de facto consensus and talk page consensus.
De facto consensus may be challenged by bold edit, as in this case. If the bold edit is challenged by reversion, a discussion is required and no further edits occur until there is a consensus for change. Status quo ante (minimum 4–6 weeks) determines (1) what will be in the article while discussion is underway and (2) what will remain in the article in the event of "no consensus" on the talk page.
Talk page consensus may not be challenged by bold edit; it requires prior talk page consensus to change. No edits occur during the discussion. A consensus list item is not required (but one does strongly imply that editors accept that the discussion in fact yielded a consensus; absent closure, that may not be readily apparent otherwise). Status quo ante is not in play.
This is at this article, at least, per its history since about 2015. Absent clear and unambiguous WP policy, other articles may vary and "correct" process often depends on who's around at the time. The result is a lot of time spent debating process (with or without related edit warring) instead of debating article content. Our way is better.
I perceive wide acceptance of the above at this article, or at least tolerance. Enforcement of these principles has not been successfully challenged in recent memory, even as enforcement has become more frequent. It's like there is an unstated local consensus for them, existing only in editors' minds. I see nothing improper about this from a policy standpoint, and it has not been challenged at ArbCom. But there remains a continuous trickle of editors who aren't aware, effectively requiring the very "debating of process" that the above seeks to prevent. We saw this recently here, for just one example.
What do editors think about formalizing this kind of thing in a consensus list item? I'm imagining a new subpage of this page, outlining what we accept as "proper" process at this article. The above text would be a good start. That done, we could simply point to the list item, which would link to the subpage, similar to what we've done with consensus 61 with good results. Needless to say, that consensus could change.
If we're already doing it, I don't see anything improper about committing it to writing. That would actually be more transparent. Yes, as far as I'm concerned, we can establish "local policy" when the community policy is unhelpfully vague and unnecessarily complex. Dissenters could take it to ArbCom. ―Mandruss☎22:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
We don't do anything here that directly contradicts community policy/accepted practice. For example, we didn't invent the concepts of de facto consensus and status quo ante, or the principle that a disputed edit requires talk page consensus. What we do is change it from a suggestion to a requirement (and define "de facto consensus" as 4–6 weeks, eliminating argument about that, etc). Wikipedia really hates bright lines—with a precious few exceptions, volunteer editors must never be told they "must" do something—but that doesn't work very well in the CT world.
We could take the hundreds of thousands of words of the community's editing process policy and distill them into a single page comprising less than one thousand words, and I believe we should do so. (The "good start" above is 136 words, so we're probably talking about less than 500.) ―Mandruss☎23:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
We cannot invent a "local policy". If you think community policy is "unhelpfully vague and unnecessarily complex", sofixit. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
We cannot invent a "local policy". If we have a consensus to do so, we can unless ArbCom says we can't. Your dissenting !vote is noted.[a] As I've indicated, the unstated "local policy" already exists with wide support. I'm merely proposing we write it down for the sake of efficiency, clarity, and transparency. Editors who are unfamiliar could spend five minutes reading the subpage and learn things the easy way instead of the hard way, making work on this article a lot less unpleasant.sofixit Ok, I'll go distill the hundreds of thousands of words of the community's editing process policyinto a single page comprising less than one thousand words. Be right back. ―Mandruss☎00:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
I wrote a long and windy multi-paragraph spiel, but I've realized it can be distilled into a single sentence: I don't understand the problem we are trying to solve here. Cessaune[talk]02:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough; there are a lot of words there. Executive summary:
there remains a continuous trickle of editors who aren't aware, effectively requiring the very "debating of process" that the above seeks to prevent. Read a substantial amount of time spent debating process, completely avoidable. Same as with consensus 61, which has saved us the substantial amount of time we used to spend trying to educate readers about Wikipedia content policy (while doing a pretty poor job of it). You may not notice the saving, but I think about it every time I close per 61. Also avoidable conflict and bad feelings.
Editors who are unfamiliar could spend five minutes reading the subpage and learn things the easy way instead of the hard way, making work on this article a lot less unpleasant.
But it could, and that's my point. We'd be creating something that only experienced editors would read. The vast majority of people, in my estimation, would do a surface-level skim if that. If we just codified these things in the consensus list, we could just point to item 68 and 69, for example. Cessaune[talk]03:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Oh. So you're breaking down the subpage content into individual elements small enough to be codified in consensus list items. That would work, too. It might even work better, imagining what my single list item would look like after years of amendments to the subpage. Thanks for the suggestion. ―Mandruss☎03:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
That being said, we are veering into iffy territory here. I wouldn't be surprised if such an attempt heads to AN. And, for some reason, I don't think they'll be as accepting as they've been in the past. We've already been warned against creating local policy, and we were able to weasel our way out of that by reasoning that we weren't creating local policy, merely documenting consensuses. Even though the consensuses in this case already exist in practice, it's the documenting of them that I think is going to doom this whole effort, which is stupid and dumb. Cessaune[talk]14:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
So what's the worst that can happen? We get shot down. That's not a reason not to try to improve things. The potential benefits far outweigh the potential risk. We should learn from the success of the consensus list itself, the result of editors unafraid to be different. it's the documenting of them that I think is going to doom this whole effort That goes to the aforementioned transparency. I'm not one for trying to hide what we do here. Maybe I should be more politically shrewd, avoiding drawing attention to things I know the community might shoot down. Trump would approve. this whole effort, which is stupid and dumb. This effort is stupid and dumb? ―Mandruss☎16:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
The idea that we would get shut down is stupid and dumb.
The worst that could happen, which I think is a very real possibility, is that we get banned from creating local policy and from enforcing local policy, regardless of if said policy has been codified or not. Cessaune[talk]01:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
It's not even a local policy, just a clarification of how to apply WP:NOCONSENSUS in an article that is sometimes edited dozens of times within a few hours by editors with widely different "WP skills". We define "existing consensus" as content that has been unchanged 4–6 weeks prior to the proposal or bold edit.
When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.
Do we want to interpret "prior to the proposal or bold edit" as the first, second, third, nth of several additions/modifications/removals done within a short time span? And, if so, how long or short a time span — minutes, hours, days? Took me a while to understand the guiding principle but, yeah, 4–6 weeks is the reasonable compromise mentioned in the first sentence of WP:CON if we want to avoid endless edit-warring on this page. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖14:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Creating a hardline 'you can't do this' or 'you have to do it this way' is creating local policy. For example, if edits are expressly disallowed during the course of a discussion, that is creating a local policy. And, in this case, I'd imagine that such measures would be far more rigorously enforced than the wording of most PAGs allow for ('you can't edit per consensus #68' as opposed to 'you shouldn't edit per WP:BRD' or something), which many will take issue with in my estimation. We'd be creating something with the power of an ArbCom remedy. Cessaune[talk]14:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Would ArbCom see the need for remedies if local editors have already come up with workable solutions? They don't remedy nonexistent problems. ―Mandruss☎16:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
If our local rules do substantially more good than harm, that's the definition of an IAR situation.
Wikipedia editing is not about blind and rigid adherence to rules.
Thinking outside the box is not, in fact, a sin.
Folks need to stop throwing around slogans like "you can't create local policy", and start explaining why that's an actual problem—a problem at this article, specific to this situation, in real-life, practical, down-to-earth terms, not in vague theoretical ivory-tower generalities.
I don't honk at people when they merely commit a traffic infraction near me; that's just being an anal-retentive dick. Rather, I honk at them when they cause a significant problem near me. Meanwhile, I don't hesitate to commit a traffic infraction to avoid creating a significant problem, and they are free to honk all they want; too effing bad. My focus is on problems, not rules. This is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. I think I'm channeling Jimbo Wales; if not, I think he would support me on this. ―Mandruss☎15:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
We can't create local policy because well-meaning, established editors and admin won't want us to, if previous run ins with AN are any indication. I think this is both stupid and extremely salient. The reason why it's a problem will differ from editor to editor, but the consensus will be against such measures. I am fully confident of this.
I also generally dislike the idea of hard-and-fast rules. It goes against my own personal philosophy and the way Wikipedia is supposed to work in my mind. Cessaune[talk]02:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
You may be right, or they might surprise you for once. If the former, I want people on record violating one of WP's most fundamental principles. It won't age well. There's no doubt plenty of record of asininity (that a word?), but not so much of people violating the IAR principle. ―Mandruss☎02:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
That being said, there are valid, policy-based reasons why someone would oppose such measures that are both related to the process behind the rules' existence and the proposed rules themselves. WP:LOCALCON comes to mind. Cessaune[talk]02:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Notes
^As far as I'm aware, not even 19 years and 223 Kedits earn one veto power around here. I could be mistaken, but I don't think so.
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.
Obama's is from 2012. Bush43's is from 2003. Clinton's is from 1993. They are all fine. Trump's is fine. We use the most recent official portrait. See current consensus item 1. ―Mandruss☎00:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Tone
This page/entry is written with a purposeful, negatively-biased tone. One that is seemingly meant to stir up frenzied opposition. The same can be said about many of the Main Articles linked within the entry. This and other said entries were clearly written and edited with such a negative bias in mind. ChonokisFigueroa (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
I would like to see you suggest one specific example where you would improve the tone, for illustrative purposes. Similar to #61, it's not particularly useful to speak in generalities. Please note the example and your suggested alternative language. ―Mandruss☎23:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Good luck. I dont think its possible to eliminate the bias/tone. 95% of editors here have made there minds up on trump and are incapable of an unbiased reading of this article. Numerous people have routinely brought this very thing up, including myself. Further, they will ask for a specific instance of this bias/ negstive tone, and seemingly dont understand to fix this problem the majority of the article, which for obvious reasons is extensive, would need to be re-written. 216.175.28.83 (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
No but we need to know what the issues are, so as to not repeat them, unless we know what you object to, we might well add is back. Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are never re-written in my 10 years of experience, and certainly not articles of this size. Rather, they are iteratively improved. If this article were re-written, who would do it? Obviously not the 95% of editors here [who] have made there minds up on trump and are incapable of an unbiased reading of this article. Who chooses the editors to replace us? You? A panel of members of the public? Who chooses the panel members? No Wikipedia article content is subject to popular vote, and this page is not for generalized rants. Please confine any future comments to things that stand a snowball's chance of having any effect. ―Mandruss☎22:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
The tone is, first and foremost, gratitude for the opportunity to participate in the discussion.
(Unlike some other candidates.)
Mr. Trump shows political courage and self-confidence.
Doesn't throw words to the wind: "If the Russians kill just one US soldier, there will be a third world war." (I mean, do any of the Russians need to do such terrible things?
By the way. The leaders of Russia are sooo sensitive and dogmatic. Challenges can cost something.)Mandruss2 (talk) 10:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)blocked for username impersonation. – robertsky (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
I think people need to read wp:soap and wp:or, do any RS say Trump shows more "political courage and self-confidence" than any other candidate (rather than say "arrogance and stupidity"?)? Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Pursuant to the preceding thread, I'm seeking a consensus for the following local process rule.
If something has existed or not existed in the article for at least 4–6 weeks, that inclusion or omission has "de facto consensus" status. De facto consensus may be challenged by bold edit. If the bold edit is challenged by reversion, a discussion is required and no further edits occur until there is a consensus for change. "Status quo ante" refers to the article state prior to the bold edit; it determines (1) what will be in the article while discussion is underway and (2) what will remain in the article in the event of "no consensus" on the talk page.
Support as proposer. Merely codifies what we already do at this article, and have done for at least a few years. We should consider altering 4–6 weeks to a single hard number, lest we have disputes over situations in the middle of that range. ―Mandruss☎17:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Please link the community consensus that is inconsistent/incompatible with this rule, something specific to de facto consensus and status quo ante. ―Mandruss☎17:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
WP:ONUS, which is policy, notes the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material and conflicts with this "de facto consensus" proposal. Silence after a bold edit results in presumed consensus not de facto consensus per WP:CON, which is also policy that conflicts with this proposal. We don't need to say De facto consensus may be challenged by bold edit. since that's already covered by and in agreement with WP:BOLD. So while harmless, that sentence adds nothing to the proposal. Something having "not existed" in an article is a bizarre criterion since nothing exists until it is added so silence on something that doesn't exist isn't an indicator of any modicum of consensus. While I agree that "at least 4-6 weeks" is mathematically equivalent to "at least 4 weeks", that issue is null since this proposal is a nonstarter. Practically speaking, I also don't see it solving the problem it's intended to solve. We're already covered by WP:CTOP and I don't see any procedure that we actually would be allowed to adopt through article talk page discussion substantially improving on that. VQuakr (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment - Article content should be a matter of opinion and subject to consensus on a case-by-case basis. Process should not be either be neither. ―Mandruss☎17:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC) Edited for clarity 23:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
There might be a missing word above but if I'm understanding you correctly: if you disagree with WP:LOCALCONSENSUS you should discuss that there not here. VQuakr (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
I do have some issues with LOCALCONSENSUS, but that's irrelevant since this does not violate it in my view. I'm merely saying that the less time we spend arguing about process, the more time we have to argue about content. ―Mandruss☎17:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Presumably the irony of voicing this viewpoint in a process-oriented thread created by yourself is not lost on you. This proposal is obviously in conflict with LOCALCONSENSUS regardless of your view. VQuakr (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Said irony is lost on me. This is a one-time process argument for the purpose of avoiding years of continuous process argument—an investment with an expected high ROI—which is apparently lost on you. Thank you for your !vote. ―Mandruss☎18:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Said irony is lost on me. Apparently. Avoiding years of continuous process argument this proposal, even if it had a snowball's chance of ratification, would certainly not accomplish that. What can accomplish that is to focus your own replies on content rather than claiming there is some enforceable special process in place at this talk page that amplifies the significance of a month's silence. VQuakr (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely it would accomplish that. The process disagreement at Talk:Donald Trump#Infobox, notability of parents, for example, would have been replaced by "See current consensus 68". And that example is probably atypical as the other editor (Keivan.f) was more reasonable/flexible than most; the debate could have continued for much longer. ―Mandruss☎19:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
That's your best example?? In that thread you are arguing process, citing a process that doesn't exist. That is an example of a content discussion that was turned into a process argument by you (ok, the OP had a bit of a process slant but your reply was exclusively process-oriented). That could be avoided by you not doing that. That would have a positive ROI. VQuakr (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
I believe I stated it was not my best example. It's an example sufficient to illustrate the point. I honestly don't get your apparent argument that process is unimportant in dispute resolution, but I guess our brains are built differently. Me, I'm a longtime subscriber to WP:PII. ―Mandruss☎19:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
I already said what point it actually illustrates, and your characterization of my reasoning is completely inaccurate. I am opposed to arguing about process in the wrong venue. VQuakr (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
So we should have taken that process discussion, and all others like it past and future, to Village Pump or something? I think not. ―Mandruss☎21:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
No straw man, I'm genuinely struggling to understand your position. Wikipedia editing is metaphorically a game, and every game needs rules that are clear and simple enough for mere humans (i.e., average editors) to understand; else as much time is spent debating the rules as playing the game. I'd ask this question: Where was your objection when that discussion was underway? Not to mention the many that preceded it? For that matter, not that I expect you to know, where was anybody's objection? ―Mandruss☎21:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
I guess I could object now because [16] was indeed an obnoxious distraction from the content discussion, but I think looking forward is more productive. Hopefully my feedback here will drive you to consider whether the behavior should be repeated. And there is in fact (well deserved) complaint about these antics later in that discussion. Our "rules" are our relevant PAGs; if you believe them deficient then that problem exists everywhere and should be addressed centrally. To repeat my original comment, this article is not special. VQuakr (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Well the behavior will be repeated until you or someone else shows us an alternative way that works well in actual practice. And there is in fact (well deserved) complaint about these antics later in that discussion. A complaint which failed and was not taken to a higher power such as AN or AE. this article is not special is an argument against the consensus list, which has more than proven its value (and has been recently upheld at AN). ―Mandruss☎21:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Since you seem to be unable to stop mischaracterizing my reasoning, I don't think further replies here are productive. Hopefully someone will come by and archive these two sections shortly. VQuakr (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think further replies here are productive. Works for me. Hopefully someone will come by and archive these two sections shortly. They had better be an admin or we're going to have a serious problem. ―Mandruss☎22:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment - Re no further edits occur until there is a consensus for change: I'm always annoyed when I see an article changed because a discussion is leaning in one direction (in one editor's subjective opinion, usually an editor who supports said change). What, are we to change the article back when the discussion leans in the other direction? Is this tennis? How is that constructive? This is inconsistent with any concept of orderly process. And what's the hurry? There is no deadline. There is nothing wrong with codifying principles like this if a majority of an article's editors agree.Then there are edits-during-discussion that are merely substitutes for discussion. "Here's my !vote in an edit summary", if they even go as far as to write a meaningful edit summary. That's pure disruptive editing in my view, and their edit summary !vote will not be found in the archived discussion containing the consensus if any. Absent explicit WP policy to that effect, a local consensus would be very helpful. Simply relying on WP:DE is not a solution, since that forces us to spend time discussing whether the edit in fact violates DE. In essence that means establishing a consensus "local" to that single case. And it has to be repeated, quite redundantly, for each such case, forever. Or, we can choose to live with the disruption and the incomplete archive. Avoiding those two bad options is the whole point.But this rule should not preclude an edit like this one, which arose during the discussion and was an effort to facilitate consensus. Using that situation as an example, the rule should preclude only adding the shooter's name in visible prose while discussion was underway. We probably need to adjust the language to make this distinction, but I'm not sure how to do that in a clear and simple way. ―Mandruss☎03:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. If there is no consensus to include, we shouldn't include per WP:NOCON, WP:BLP and the idea behind WP:CTOP. I also disagree with the idea of effectively banning WP:Bold-refine, per both my own personal philosophy and a few discussions, most notably this discussion and the subsequent RFC, where bold-refine was used extensively to create a better article IMO. Cessaune[talk]01:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
It looks like you think this is an up-or-down vote on that exact text. How about helping improve it instead of helping kill it before it has a chance to be improved? Isn't that how it's supposed to work? ―Mandruss☎02:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
It looks like you think this is an up-or-down vote on that exact text. Yes one would think that, since that is what you asked for in the first sentence of this thread. This proposal is DOA and a waste of time. VQuakr (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Most experienced editors don't take that so literally, knowing that consensus often requires adjustment to a proposal (aka collaboration). However, an experienced editor might choose to take it so literally if doing so provides an opportunity to take a cheap shot at the proposer.Your tone/battleground mentality in this thread has not been welcome (repeatedly accusing me of mischaracterizing your comments when I was having trouble understanding them, accusing me of creating straw men, etc)."Said irony is lost on me. Apparently."[17] No, it wasn't "apparent", it was explicitly stated by me, as you quoted. That was pure unhelpful, unnecessary snark.Please waste no more of your time here. ―Mandruss☎22:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Your opinion has been noted, and you have !voted. In a sincere way, I would ask you to kindly disengage from this thread as to let it waste as little of your valuable Wikipedia time as possible. I personally think that these discussions are very, very important, and you are welcome to disagree, of course.
If you have anything to add that will generate productive discussion, say it. But your tone isn't conducive to a productive environment. Cessaune[talk]16:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment - Maybe the problem is insufficient granularity?
68. The article is not changed during discussion merely because the discussion is perceived to be leaning in one direction.
69. "De facto consensus" is implied when there has been no change in [x] weeks.
70. Editing during discussion is not a substitute for discussion.
Really? Edit 1 summary: "Discussion is leaning in this direction." Edit 2 summary: "rv per current consensus 68". What's vague about that? Seems very straightforward to me. ―Mandruss☎20:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
That's one of many potential cases. Edit 1 summary: "Bold-refining this paragraph." Edit 2 summary: "rv per consensus item #68." New process discussion within the content discussion is created, editor time is used up, etc. Cessaune[talk]20:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Edit 1 summary: "Bold-refining this paragraph." Edit 2 summary: "rv per consensus item #68." Edit 3 summary: "rv: please read a consensus item before you cite it in a reversion." ―Mandruss☎18:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Suggested format change to the current consensus list
The consensus list currently has 67 entries, 14 of which (about 20%) are no longer in effect due to being cancelled, superseded, etc. I suggest that the list is more useful if these line items are removed after a suitable period of time (maybe 1 month?) from the list to an archive subpage (such as /Current consensus/Archive) that is linked from the main list. Line item numbers would not be reused. The purpose of this change would be to make the list easier to navigate via scrolling and make it take up less space on the talk page in its un-collapsed state. VQuakr (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Reviewing some of the differences between that proposal and this one: by using an archive subpage, we no longer have a concern about causing navigation issues on the root talk page due to length of struck items. That means that we can provide the full history of an item's adoption and removal, with links, located on an archive subpage one click away from the talk page. I believe this makes navigation of old items easier (or at least) not more difficult, than today's configuration. To be honest I struggle to think of any downsides and this seems to me to be a straightforward improvement, though I'd love to hear others' thoughts. VQuakr (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
My particular suggested change was flawed for reasons pointed out by others (yourself included, if I remember correctly). However, I didn't particularly care about the method as much as I do the outcome. I still believe it would be beneficial to reduce the length of the list, by whatever means feasible. TarnishedPathtalk09:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I remain strongly opposed to any change. No point in regurgitating the same arguments I posed in the previous discussion. However, since there was no consensus in the previous, I can't claim this is a settled issue. As for I believe this makes navigation of old items easier (or at least) not more difficult, than today's configuration., well, I just disagree <shrug>. ―Mandruss☎19:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
I remain strongly opposed to any change. Because this proposal is similar but not identical to the previous one, I believe it would be helpful if you would provide your reasoning. Well, I just disagree in the current configuration, to navigate to a RFC that rescinded an item there are two clicks required (unhide, click RFC). In the proposed configuration, there would be two clicks required (archive link, click RFC). Can you clarify the reasoning underlying your opinion? VQuakr (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
On an internet built around clicks, its users performing hundreds or thousands of clicks per day without even thinking about it much, minimization of clicks is not my first priority—or even particularly high on my list. My real-life career was very much built around the KISS principle (with a high degree of success), so I instinctively see the world through that lens. A separate page adds a degree of complexity that I'm unable to justify. ―Mandruss☎20:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Navigation to obsolete decisions is a pathway I imagine to be relatively rare. The offsetting advantage is simplification of the list on the talk page to solely active remedies (which presumably are viewed more frequently), making them easier to navigate as well as easier to scroll past when navigating to other active discussions on the talk page. Put another way: we are both fans of simplicity but appear to disagree on which approach is simpler in this context. VQuakr (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
we are both fans of simplicity but appear to disagree on which approach is simpler in this context. Eliminating a click or some scrolling reduces work, not complexity. They are not the same thing. Stacking one thousand equally-sized blocks of wood is labor-intensive but simple enough for a reasonably intelligent chimpanzee to accomplish. Other thoughts:
If I'm a first-time editor here, I'm wondering "Why are there gaps in the numbering?" Then I figure it out—maybe—when I see the link at the top about the archive. Maybe it would be better if I didn't have to figure it out? And experience tells me some editors wouldn't figure it out on their own.
Our current configuration makes it clear at first glance that consensus can change here. Not quite so clear with your proposal, although, again, one could figure it out.
Generally speaking, it's good practice to design for the newbies, not for ourselves. We can easily handle things that are unnecessarily simple for us; meanwhile, newbies can't easily handle things that are unnecessarily complex for them. (Echoes of discussion about process policy?) ―Mandruss☎00:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Why do you have to scroll past [the consensus list] when navigating to other active discussions on the talk page? They're all listed in the TOC, in Vector 10 as well as Vector 22. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖14:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
All this does is make things more complex for marginal, marginal benefit. With V22 being the preferred skin for most editors and readers alike, the sticky TOC essentially eliminates the need for scrolling in a lot of cases. And scrolling itself is hardly an issue: I don't remember anyone genuinely complaining about scrolling being a problem for them so much as a very minor inconvenience. Ultimately, to me such a change boils down to nothing ultimately: a little benefit, a little drawback, for such an inconsequential problem? Not worth the time IMO. Cessaune[talk]00:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Reducing a list of 67 entries by approximately 20% is not marginal and the suggested solution is far from burdensomely complex to implement, maintain and subsequently navigate. TarnishedPathtalk09:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
20% is signficant enough when the list takes up over a screen length. That would be 20% less time I and anyone else needs to spend scrolling with my mouse at the expense of a few extra clicks on rare occaisions. TarnishedPathtalk06:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
The core question here is: is such a change marginal? Because, if it is, then I don't see any valid reason to impose it. So why don't you think its marginal? Cessaune[talk]14:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 August 2024
This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This person is also a convicted felon as well as a businessman. You must add this to the title to be accurate. The democracy is in jeopardy. 162.81.40.243 (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Not done - Misuse of the edit request facility, which is for uncontroversial changes. You may open a discussion to seek consensus, but I wouldn't waste everybody's time with such a non-starter. ―Mandruss☎19:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Donald Trump is a convicted felon now, and it is important context regarding his numerous civil and criminal trials that are ongoing. BasedGigachad (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
"Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged, racist, and misogynistic." This statement is clear opinion inserted into an otherwise factually article. Either provide sources or remove this. Wikipedia has lost a lot of trust and respect and this kind of statement is exactly why. Thecommander236 (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Not sure I understand the question, but maybe this will help:Consensus 25 refers to the archive-related parameters of citation templates such as {{cite web}}. These parameters are |archive-url=, |archive-date=, and |url-status=. Consensus 25 has nothing to do with the archived sources themselves at sites such as web.archive.org aka Wayback Machine. At an article that currently has 838 citations, three of which are currently for sources known to be dead, the consensus is that the archive parameters cannot be justified for live sources that may die at some point in the future (link rot). We add the archive parameters when the source is found dead, not before. For more, see the discussions linked in the consensus list item, if you haven't already. ―Mandruss☎21:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
One-time offer: Any editor who verifies the life status of the other 835 sources earns a barnstar from me. With bonus points for any sources they find dead. The honor system is in effect; you can say you did it without doing it, if a barnstar is worth more to you than your integrity. ―Mandruss☎21:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
I have clarified the language in #25.[18] I've long believed the language was confusing, failing to clearly distinguish between the archived sources and the archive parameters, and this thread finally provided me the motivation to fix it. ―Mandruss☎18:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
@IP user: All links added to Wikipedia are automatically archived within a few days of their addition. See WP:PLRT.
@Mandruss: There is normally no need to manually check citations for URL status, as we have multiple bots and automated systems that do that. See WP:LINKROT. Normally, manual intervention by editors is normally only required for complex cases, such as websites that have been redirected or usurped and remain live, but no longer point to the actual content of the source. Melmann10:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
A user removed that Israeli officials lobbied Trump into recognizing "Israeli sovereignty" over the Golan Heights. [19]
I believe this information is very important to present a clear and accurate view to the reader about how this recognition happened. Please restore it. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
A good example of why the piecemeal approach to article reduction doesn't work. We see the need to elaborate on or clarify content that shouldn't be there in the first place. Bad Stuff™ tends to encourage/attract more Bad Stuff. ―Mandruss☎21:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, nobody has considered this proposed content important enough to include in Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration, and it has far more place there than in Trump's top-level biography. The word "sovereignty" is not found in that article in reference to Israel. My proposal is to remove all country-specific foreign policy from this article, referring readers to the Foreign policy article for that information. ―Mandruss☎21:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I would support heavy cuts to the foreign policy section. Much of it is not very important for a Trump biography. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't see why that should be included. Politicians get lobbied all the time, this isn't special. TBH, I'm unsure whether this article should mention the Golan Heights at all. I don't know whether it is relevant to a biography of Trump. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
It's another incidence of Trump ignoring international law and American allies. In the final stage of Trump's attempt to regain the presidency, I wouldn't want to start removing any of the "highlights" of his four years in office. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖16:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
There you go again, essentially saying that readers won't read Trump subarticles or shouldn't be expected to do so. ―Mandruss☎17:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
No, I'm not. I'm saying it's important enough for Trump's record as president to get the brief mention it currently has. If anyone wants to know more, there are two links readers can follow which wouldn't be there without the seven words. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖18:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I think you give Trump too much credit/blame for foreign policy during his administration. It was hardly a Nixonesque situation, where the president actually has a good grasp of foreign policy, where policy starts at the top and flows downward. To a great extent, things just happened during Trump's watch and he signed some things put in front of him. At least that's my perception. ―Mandruss☎19:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:LEAD, the lead section of an article "should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs" that summarize the article's content. Hope the editors well versed with this article arrange the lead accordingly. Rim sim (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Do you have any actual concrete suggestions on how to do that in this extremely fraught and over-debated article? If there were any article where an exception may be expected, it would be this one. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)14:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't care much about that poorly-written WP:LEAD quote. The number of paragraph breaks is not the issue, here or anywhere. Let's stop counting paragraphs and start counting words. ―Mandruss☎16:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
"Scottish-born" mother
I added "Scottish-born" to mention of Trump's mother; it was reverted as "unimportant". Under ordinary circumstances I could argue that it is relevant, if not particularly important, and only adds two words. However, in the context of this article it seems important, as Trump has been vocal about the immigrant ancestry of political opponents, although he is the son (maternal side) and grandson (paternal side) of immigrants. While I didn't provide a source, the adjective is uncontroversial, and very easily sourced if challenged. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
I almost opposed, then changed my mind. It's a basic biographical fact (Trump's parents' ancestries are his ancestry; that's how ancestry works). And I'll take almost anything that balances the overemphasis on Trump's presidency in this article, even a little.I don't think political considerations have any place in this, but, if you wish to make that argument, you need to show non-opinion sourcing to support said relevance. ―Mandruss☎05:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
The more important thing is, "Do sources about Trump's biography mention his mom was born in Scotland?"If that answer is "no" then it is not WP:DUE information. There are tons of sources about Trump's mother, but what we need is a source focused on DJT, that mentions his mother's ancestry. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)14:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
I also think it's an unimportant detail. Mary Anne McLeod Trump was a naturalized citizen by the time Trump was born. Two of Trump's wives (Ivana and Melania), however, weren't when he married them. Ivana was an Austrian citizen through her sham marriage to an Austrian and living in Canada with her Czech boyfriend when she met Trump on a modeling job in New York. We can only speculate how Melania qualified for the EB1 "Einstein visa". After she became a citizen, she legally sponsored her parents (and, I believe, her sister, as well) to obtain green cards, the "chain migration" Trump wants to eliminate (WaPo, NYT). After five years of residency the Knavses were then able to apply for citizenship and became naturalized citizens in August 2018. While their application was being processed, Trump tweeted in November 2017 that "CHAIN MIGRATION must end now! Some people come in, and they bring their whole family with them, who can be truly evil" (NYT cite). Hypocrisy — sure, like pornography I know it when I see it, but the coverage is along the lines of the WaPo cite: "Critics said the Knavses' ability to secure green cards and citizenship smacks of hypocrisy, given the president's hard-line immigration stance." Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖15:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
This article has suffered the removal of much significant content on the premise that the page is "too long". Unless Trump is spotted golfing in his ancestral kilt or some other event receives widespread ongoing RS discussion, I would rely on our sub-articles to cover his blood lines. SPECIFICOtalk18:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment: this discussion is about whether to include the two word (one compound word?) adjective "Scottish-born". Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
The 2 words are not relevant to Trump's biography. Moreover, you have freely admitted above ("as Trump has been vocal about the immigrant ancestry of political opponents") that you want this addition as an exercise in point-making and not as an honest editing suggestion. That sort of thing begins to build the groundwork for topic or page-bans, so, take some advice and quit while you're behind. Zaathras (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Not done: Since Crooks was killed by the Secret Service and his exact motives are still unknown, we cannot say with certainty that his goal was to assassinate Trump. We can only presume that that was his intent. Hence the current wording is correct. General IzationTalk 03:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Editing per "leaning" discussion
Pursuant to earlier discussion, seeking consensus for:
The article is not changed during discussion merely because the discussion is perceived to be leaning in one direction.
Support as proposer. I'm always annoyed when I see an article changed because a discussion is leaning in one direction (in one editor's subjective opinion, usually an editor who supports said change). What, are we to change the article back when the discussion leans in the other direction? Is this tennis? How is that constructive? This is inconsistent with any concept of orderly process. And what's the hurry? There is no deadline. ―Mandruss☎19:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
That's site-wide good practice in many situations, but this would be the sort of "local consensus" that cannot supplant site-wide consensus -- in this case about PAG's. So what's the point? Why not propose it at Village Pump or similar. SPECIFICOtalk19:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Where is said site-wide consensus or PAG? Why not propose it at Village Pump or similar. Because I don't seek to change the world. Improvements can begin small and grow organically (sort of like consensus lists, for example). ―Mandruss☎19:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:EDITCON, both of which are sections of the same policy. Jurisdiction concerns aside, I think this would be unnecessary instruction creep, particularly for an article already under CTOP restriction. VQuakr (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Unlike this proposal, item 43 is a repetition of content already in our PAGs. It strikes me as harmlessly unnecessary (I would oppose adding it to the list per instruction creep were the conversation being had now), but it isn't worth the electrons to discuss removing it today. VQuakr (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
And yet, we had recurring disputes around the issue until #43 was passed. Now we don't. I don't call that harmlessly unnecessary; I call it useful per empirical evidence. ―Mandruss☎20:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Some editors do this. Other editors don't like it. Yet others dgaf. Far from a global consensus, that's "no consensus" at best. So your policy does not apply here. Again, where is the community consensus that an article can be edited based on the perception that a discussion is leaning? ―Mandruss☎19:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
This feels a little WP:CREEPY to me.Is there a technical distinction between a generic bold-refine and this? Would the difference be fully contained in the content of the edit summary? Cessaune[talk]20:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
I honestly don't see the problem there. In my experience, the edit summary is quite clear that it's because the discussion is leaning, no other reason. There is no refining to be seen in the edit; it's all about process, not content. It essentially says, quite fallaciously: "This is how it's going to turn out anyway, so we might as well go ahead and change the article." ―Mandruss☎21:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
I have no issue with a CREEP argument. Editors may decide that it's not enough of a problem to justify a new consensus item. I disagree (consensus items are cheap in my view), but, if so, so be it. But that's the only legitimate and logical Oppose argument I see here, so far. (I'm all too aware that arguments don't need to be legitimate or logical to count in an outcome.) ―Mandruss☎21:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
My Dear, the point is you will advocate bravely for this new mode, possibly raising your blood pressure etc. Then after it's adopted, there comes some entitled newb months hence who resents being restricted and blows up this talk page yet again. 'S Not worthit, IMO. SPECIFICOtalk21:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Experience clearly contradicts that. This talk page is rarely blown up in opposition to a local consensus. There are objections, but they are quashed in short order. We don't revisit a consensus merely because somebody shows up who disagrees with it. Instead, we have concrete criteria for revisitation, and they have worked remarkably well (uncodified criteria, unfortunately, and maybe that will be remedied on some bright day in the future). My blood pressure is fine, actually close to the low end of normal range, but thanks for your concern. My dear. ―Mandruss☎22:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree with unnecessary instruction creep. It won't keep less experienced users from committing the faux pas, it won't deter the plain ornery, and it takes just as long to write a revert editsum referring to consensus #n as one referring to an ongoing discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖11:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
"one of the worst presidents in American history"
What I think should be changed: Remove "Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history." from the end of the 5th opening text paragraph.
Why it should be changed: The text is strongly worded, yet is poorly sourced (instead it links to another article, where *some* scholars and historians have expressed this opinion). Referencing "scholars and historians" in general, is a weasel word and falls below the editorial standards of Wikipedia. There are likewise a number of scholars and academics who hold more favourable views of the former President, which this statement downplays.
References supporting the possible change: Most of the criticisms raised do not require references (i.e. pointing out that the statement is arbitrary and relies on weasel words). Here is an article by the LA Times which discusses scholars and academics who hold more favourable views of Donald Trump, as well as a peer-reviewed academic paper on the matter.
This isn't just "some" scholars and historians ranking him very low in one survey, this is multiple, high-profile groups that have consistently ranked him at or near the bottom of the list. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Edit requests are for uncontroversial changes: changes that no editor could reasonably object to, changes that do not require discussion. This hardly qualifies; therefore I'm converting it to a discussion. In the future, please use the "New section" link at the top of this page unless you're pointing out typos, obvious grammatical errors, broken links, clear violations of consensus, etc. ―Mandruss☎16:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
See current consensus item 54 and the RfC discussion linked there. Do you have any new argument? We typically don't revisit a consensus unless there is significant new argument or the external situation has changed significantly. ―Mandruss☎17:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I looked it up; your old argument was We are not even 12 months from his defeat... we're now closer to 4 years after his defeat than 3, so this is one argument that has weakened over the years. Has there been a shift in the historical assessment regarding the subject's quality as president in the intervening time? That would be a potentially strong argument for a new RfC. VQuakr (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Right; hence unless [...] the external situation has changed significantly. (If that principle were codified in a consensus, we could close this now, potentially avoiding significant distraction, and the OP could open a new discussion in the unlikely event they have significant new argument. The concept of "settled issue" is well accepted here, and for good reason.) ―Mandruss☎18:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
The text is not poorly sourced. It summarizes the article body, which in the section Scholarly assessment and public approval surveys contains the requisite sourcing. The LA times link is to an article from election day, 2016. It therefore predates every action by Trump as president and is not relevant to a summary of how his legacy is viewed. The Theory and Society article clearly casts academic supporters of Trump as a tiny minority. It also is not new: that article existed in 2021 when the previous RfC was held, and therefore would be unlikely to upset the consensus that resulted from that discussion. VQuakr (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
One of our cites is C-SPAN's "Presidential Historians Survey 2021". Since Biden is retiring at the end of his term, C-SPAN will presumably conduct another survey next year. We'll see how Trump will be ranked then. "Absence makes the heart grow fonder" — well, Trump hasn't been absent at all, so, pity points for getting shot at? (/not a forum) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖21:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
RfC: Residence in the infobox
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus was reached to remove the residence parameter. Arguments not based in policy or guidelines were given little weight. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 05:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm slightly conflicted; both have their benefits. Mar-a-Lago is specific (good) and has an article on his residence (good), but that plus "Palm Beach, Florida" is long (undesirable). Mar-a-Lago alone doesn't indicate where in the country he lives (undesirable); Palm Beach, Florida does that, but misses the specific Mar-a-Lago name and specificity. A? But with a line break? On the other hand entirely, Template:Infobox officeholder says neither are appropriate, though: Where this person lives. Only use for residences that come with the office. NOT for towns, cities, states, countries, etc. Obama does not use this parameter, and Biden has the White House. In keeping with consistency and documentation, it should be removed. But I'm on the side of including it because it can be useful for a wide array of biographies, not just here. SWinxy (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
A – we have an article on Mar-a-Lago, which is enough for me. Template:Infobox officeholder is really weird about this, since Trump is a one-time politician. We aren't going to add another infobox just to include his place of residence, and I think it's important info. Cessaune[talk]22:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
A: I'd rule out B entirely since that gives no mention of his (well known) residence. C is more specific but no immediate information on where Mar-a-Lago is. So I'm teetering towards keeping status quo. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 00:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
B over C. Not A. Saying "Mar-a-Lago, Palm Beach" seems a little redundant. We wouldn't say something like "the president lives in the White House, Washington DC", b/c everyone knows where the White House actually is. NickCT (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Remove field per template doc: "Only use for residences that come with the office." This guidance enjoys over four months of de facto consensus, with no challenge since it was added—at a highly visible template. Template usage guidance exists for one purpose: to keep us all on the same page, all moving in a common direction. Otherwise we might as well throw it away and save lots of time. Clearly, Mar-a-Lago did not come with the office, as evident in the fact that Joe Biden does not live there. And Trump is not in office anyway. ―Mandruss☎22:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Remove Agree with Mandruss. If the guideline says it does not belong, it should be removed. Also, doesn't he live in Trump Tower? TFD (talk) 03:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
He changed his primary residence, i.e., where he's registered to vote, pay his personal income tax, etc., from Trump Tower to Mar-a-Lago in 2019. It's unclear how often he stays at his Trump Tower penthouse; during the summer months he mostly lives at his private quarters at his golf club in Bedminster, NJ. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖10:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Remove parameter per Template:Infobox_person, which is used to summarize information about a particular person and doesn’t include the residence parameter, and Template:Infobox_officeholder#Personal_data, which says to Only use [the residence parameter] for residences that come with the office. NOT for towns, cities, states, countries, etc. The article mentions Mar-a-Lago twice, in the "Clubs" subsection of Real estate, with link to Mar-a-Lago, and in the Post-presidency (2021–present) section. Trump is not an officeholder anymore. If he’s elected to the presidency, we will add his official White House residence. If he loses the election, "infobox person" will continue to apply. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖10:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Discussion: Residence in the infobox
Should the infobox have the "residence" template at all? And, channeling Spock, shouldn't the infobox be changed to "person" once the officholder is no longer in office? I just noticed that Template:Infobox Biography has been a redirect to Template:Infobox person for three years now. The blank template of infobox person does not include "residence" in its listing of all parameters. And, as SWinxy pointed out, for officeholders the parameter is only to be used "for residences that come with the office. NOT for towns, cities, states, countries, etc." Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖12:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I think including the officeholder infobox for people not in current office is good as it shows their historical positions (if very verbose). Infobox biography has been a redirect for ~15 years to Infobox person, and I would actually like to see that template have a residence parameter. SWinxy (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
shouldn't the infobox be changed to "person" once the officholder is no longer in office? If you're suggesting a change to long-standing sitewide practice, this is not the place. Abe Lincoln uses {{infobox officeholder}}, and he's been out of office for a minute. Not to mention dead. If dying makes a difference to you, see Obama and Clinton. Same for all other former prezzes, I strongly suspect. {{infobox current or former officeholder}} would be a tad cumbersome, no? Might as well suggest changing {{infobox person}} to {{infobox former person}} upon the subject's demise. ―Mandruss☎19:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
The Spock sentence was an aside that in hindsight doesn't make any sense to me, either. Dead or alive, Lincoln, Clinton, and Obama's infoboxes don't list a residence, although Lincoln's lists his resting place. (And considering recent events, I'm self-censoring my first thought about adding a resting place that almost made it onto the keyboard.) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖16:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Mar-a-Lago, BTW, isn't zoned as a residence, it's a resort where hotel guests are allowed to stay a maximum of 21 days per year and no longer than seven days at a time. Trump is only allowed to live there because his lawyer argued that he is an employee of the club. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖14:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Weird shadow effect - img in Civil judgments sections
hello sorry for editin on top of page i am editing on playstation vita bht i was wondering kf we can link the thing in the lede about him redirecting tbe budgst to build the mexican wall sith the articke about the trump wall (blue) text link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.189.180 (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not happening. For politicians, Wikipedia uses the most recent official portrait. See current consensus item 1. Also see the talk page archives for one or more failed attempts to add the mug shot later in the article. ―Mandruss☎20:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Starting with the sentence "A special council" and thru the rest of the paragraph should be deleted and rewritten with facts and not opinionated slander by someone who doesn't hate Trump. Show some respect. I will tell you what is wrong with each sentence. I had already written a paragraph explaining why the special council sentence should be deleted. But for some reason what I wrote got deleted. It is not a stand alone sentence. The author is implying that Trump won the election because Russia helped. Hackers in Russia did cyberattack Hillary's campaign but it didn't effect the vote count. They just did that because Hillary deleted all those emails and Trump made a public announcement to the hackers of the world and asked if there was a hacker that could retrieve the emails. Russia is known for its local hackers causing problems all over the world and that is why Trump said maybe even a hacker in Russia. I'll complain about the rest later. The whole page should probably be rewritten by Trump's family. 108.190.149.87 (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The opening should mention that he is a convicted felon
We already had a whole discussion about this. There was no consensus to include in the opening sentence, and it's already in the lead as Slatersteven said. — Czello(music)09:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Photos suitable for film and television
I think that photos related to Donald Trump appearing in movies or TV are suitable for this subheading.
However, the existing photos of him watching a baseball game are not related to this subheading at all, so I think it would be appropriate to replace them with more suitable photos. Therefore, it would be appropriate to replace the photos with more relevant photos. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
In 2018, the "Side ventures" section had a "Sports events" subsection with the picture of Trump at the baseball game and an "Apprentice" subsection with the Trump/Rodman photograph on the set of the show. (In case anyone wonders, the caption of Trump's Walk of Fame star back then was misleading. He received it for producing the Miss Universe contest.) The Trump/Rodman image was removed after this discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖14:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the photo was relevant when "sports events" were located there in the past. It is no longer relevant to movie and TV titles, so could we please remove the irrelevant photo now, and add new photos when anyone find images later that are directly relevant to the subheading? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
@Goodtiming8871: I'm not married to that image, and my guess is that nobody really cares that much. That's what BOLD editing is for. I don't see that anybody has tried boldly removing that image, so I suggest you do so, citing MOS:SECTIONLOC or an equivalent guideline (image-related PAGs are scattered and often redundant). If your edit is challenged by reversion, the issue can come back here. ―Mandruss☎23:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Not done -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Not done: Since Crooks was killed by the Secret Service and his exact motives are still unknown, we cannot say with certainty that his goal was to assassinate Trump. We can only presume that that was his intent. Hence the current wording is correct. General Ization Talk 03:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
