Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 174

Archive 170

←

Archive 172

Archive 173

Archive 174

Archive 175

Archive 176

Reverted bonespur deletion

I added a sentence regarding DJT's 1968 Draft deferment granted on the basis of alleged bone spurs in both feet. The subject has substantially arisen in recent months due to the campaign. Google noted that a Trump - bone spurs ostensible diagnosis has been recently searched for over 591,000 times. The situation had been well documented for nine years, including a very extensive investigation by the New York Times starting in 2015. The Wikipedia readership should not be denied access to this information. Activist (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Activist, your bold edit on August 8 was reverted on August 9. Please, self-revert your reinstatement of the challenged material. Discussion first, wait 24 hours from the time of your talk page message before reinstating. Also, why didn't you put your comment at the bottom of the Talk page? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I have to apologize for adding the Talk on the "Bonespur" comments. I'm having terrible vision problems and expect I won't be able to edit Wikipedia for much longer. I've tried to sort this out, and hope I haven't confused things too much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activist (talk • contribs) 13:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
I think this bit is UNDUE for this page. There are several other articles for which it's suitable. There was an epidemic of bonespurs around that time. SPECIFICO talk 20:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Bonespurs are not contagious and most 1960's draft dodgers didn't have accommodating podiatrist tenants of their fathers to write the alleged diagnosis. But this particular faker is the only one currently running for president, at the same time deriding the U.S. military and simultaneously proclaiming his own supposed bravado. The 591 thousand people who made that Google search that I've noted previously may have been "spurred" on by his "suckers and losers" comments regarding the French cemetery where so many U.S. casualties were buried. His current VP candidate is busily and assiduously smearing the 24 years of military service of his opponent's VP candidate. Trump is noteworthy for having told 30,573 lies or misstatements of fact while in the White House, which was carefully documented by the Washington Post. Activist (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it is worth a sentence in the article. It gets a lot of consistent coverage and is relevant to his biography. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

We mention it in the last sentence of the "Early life" section: In October 1968, he was classified 1-Y, a conditional medical deferment,[13] and in 1972, he was reclassified 4-F, unfit for military service, due to bone spurs, permanently disqualifying him.[14] The NYT reported the podiatrist's daughters said their father often spoke of having provided a deferment-establishing bone spurs diagnosis as a courtesy to his landlord who was Trump's father Fred. I don't doubt the information but it's hearsay, and naming father and daughters is too much detail. The bone spurs made headlines when Trump first ran because he was permanently disqualified for a temporary condition, and he didn't remember which foot was affected. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

bulletproof glass at first outdoor rally

In light of the recent assassination attempt on the US president, This would be an interesting article for voters to consider regarding the safety of a leading presidential candidate representing the United States. This content would be a good addition to the campaign. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

This is undue for an article about Trump. Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't bulletproof glass, which was supposed to prevent assassination attempts during the campaign, help ease the concerns of many voters? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

That is not our job (read wp:not), this tells us nothing about Trump. Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven here. This information is not relevant for a biography of Trump, although it could potentially be worth mentioning in the article on his 2024 campaign. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment Goodtiming8871 (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Ronny Jackson "ally" removal

The article text describing Ronny Jackson as a Trump political ally -- cited to Associated Press -- has been removed on the theory that the word "ally" does not appear in the source. What the source says is that Jackson is a "staunch supporter" of Trump and then devotes several paragraphs to eviscerating Jackson as a credible witness. Somehow, either by my euphemistic "political ally" or otherwise, the sense of the cited source needs to be conveyed in our article text. SPECIFICO talk 19:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

At what point does a desire for accuracy about the nature of the ear injury become obsessive? It's Just Not That Important in my view. If Jackson had substantially exaggerated, I suspect someone with firsthand knowledge would have leaked something to that effect. Any deeper analysis can be done at Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's just be true to the sources instead of crafting narratives that are not following the cited sources. That would be the easiest and best. If you are for leaving the whole Ronny J 2 cm bit out, that would be fine too. SPECIFICO talk 21:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

If we were using wikivoice, you'd have a point. We're not. Since I introduced the whole Ronny J 2 cm bit, it's fairly obvious that I'm not for leaving it out. It provides more information than simple "injury", information that seems more credible than not per my previous comment. It maybe wouldn't have been necessary if not for a certain editor's attempt to call it a mere scratch without sufficient RS support. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

As for Let's just be true to the sources, I think you mean let's be true to the source that says what you want. I don't see much other RS seriously calling Jackson's account into question. Certainly not many saying it was a scratch. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Not following that, Mandruss. Isn't that the AP source that you added when you added the 2 cm? I just tried to conform the article to the cited source, which goes on at considerable length to cast doubt on RJ as a credible or significant factfinder. SPECIFICO talk 13:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Just looks like excessive detail and did not add value. I did not read it as the RS going to considerable length to cast doubt. PackMecEng (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Shall we escort Ronny and his laceration from the page? It's not even clear that he actually examined the patient. SPECIFICO talk 17:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I added the AP source, which has more info about the nature of the injury, and the sentence about Trump not disclosing the medical and ER records on injury and treatment. Unless the FBI has access to those and mentions them in the publicly released part of their report, that's all we'll ever find out. I also added the Wikilink to Jackson's page. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Not following that, Mandruss... - The point is that we need to at least try to be true to the body of RS, not just the RS that we cite. As I tried to indicate, the AP source is not representative of the body of RS regarding the credibility of Jackson's memo. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Jackson is not quoted. Trump presented a document attributed to Jackson. Jackson is roundly discredited by mainstream RS for the reasons in that cited article and many other reasons. There is no consensus to include this content as if it were of any medical significance. Further, given Trump's splendid recovery -- which today he boasted was due to the hand of God saving him to carry on his political role -- the whole issue of the wound is trivial. What may not turn out to be trivial is the spectacle of Trump addressing crowds from a glass cage like the parrots in the zoo and there may ultimately be psychological effects of this terrible shooting. But that will only be known some time in the future. When in doubt, take it out. Somebody will remove this fairly soon, I think, and correctly so. SPECIFICO talk 20:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

the whole issue of the wound is trivial. You didn't think it was so trivial when you made this edit. It could've been left alone. I prefer the current status quo per my earlier comments, but I have no strong objection to reverting to the state prior to your edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Ronny Jackson doesn't need to be mentioned in this article. The whole paragraph about the assassination attempt needs to be rewritten. R. G. Checkers ^talk 17:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Start rewriting! ―Mandruss ☎ 23:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that Ronny should go. VQuakr (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Ronny now booted by SPECIFICO.[1] ―Mandruss ☎ 22:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Good; endorsed. DFlhb (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 September 2024

Add “convicted felon” to title. 2600:1700:F370:EED0:C410:5B19:636B:3B72 (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: and will not be done – Muboshgu (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Special Council Investigation

Saying the S.C.I. said the Russians did interfere in the elections to favor Trump is a Highly misleading sentence. It lacks context both before and after the sentence. You should definitely include the S.C.I. said there was NO COLLUSION between Russia and Donald Trump. And the S.C I. Is the F B I. Lead by director Robert Mueller. Stop calling it the Special Council Investigation. It's called the MUELLER REPORT. THE Russian Hoax was spearheaded by Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi. And the F.B.I was complicit in making the hoax credible. The hoax and all of its lies are completely exposed to the public in Congressional Hearings led by Jim Jordan. It's on YouTube. THAT sentence by itself talking about the Special Council and Russia should be immediately DELETED.There should be a proper section where the full context of the MUELLER report can be displayed. 96.79.132.6 (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

All meaningless without reliable sources, per Wikipedia content policy. Number of reliable sources you bring to the discussion: 0. And your focus should be on the body section, not the lead. That's where we actually cite sources, and the lead is a very brief summary of that. Bring reliable sources to suggest improvements to that section and we can discuss them. Then we can discuss whether any change is needed in the lead, which is seriously space-constrained and never has room to fully explain complicated and nuanced issues. Readers who stop reading at the end of the lead, as you apparently did, will always leave less than fully informed, and that's on them.

Otherwise, stop wasting your time and, more importantly, ours. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Just noticed: There should be a proper section where the full context of the MUELLER report can be displayed. Smh. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal; the full context of the Mueller report. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Such as this one: Donald Trump#Mueller investigation, with links to Mueller special counsel investigation and Mueller report ? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, "smh" means "shaking my head". I was shaking it because the OP is proposing something that already exists. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Please condense this article

This article is way too long. The article on Trump's opponent, Kamala Harris, is short and to the point. This article should be too. I can't edit it because I don't have 500 edits. Someone please fix this! Wiki Crazyman (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump is a 78 yr-old man who has been in a public spotlight for 55 or more of those years, from business dealings to reality show host to politics. There is a lot to say and a lot to cover regarding his life and history, far more than a 59 yr-old woman whom the public has only been aware of for roughly a decade. A user with even an average attention span is able to read this article just fine. Zaathras (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Believe it or not, you're not saying anything new. Throughout this article's life since about 2015, I doubt any issues have been discussed more than its length. See the talk page archives. I would support early closure—this would be a re-hashing of something already hashed to death—but I'm not doing it unilaterally. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

believe it or not Kamala’s article is about the same excluding media and business dealings John Bois (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

This article and Kamala aren’t related to them being president these articles show what they have done in their lives so far and what’s happened in them John Bois (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump on social media

Seeing as Donald Trump relies so heavily on social media and much of the news about him concerns his statements on social media I find the wikipedia rule against sourcing social media ridiculous. Why would that rule exist? You people do realise social media makes up about a quarter of the internet anyway. Thats like making an internet dictionary about everything but wait we'll exclude the most popular stuff. At the very least we should be allowed to add his X account to the external links. Maybe not his facebook group as it is dead. http://www.facebook.com/groups/donaldtrump 202.86.32.122 (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Remove untruth from article

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.

---

Please remove this unfounded, unproven, debunked statement from this article. You are promoting hate against another human with untruths here is untrue statement to remove He was the only U.S. president without prior military or government experience. Trump promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics.

If you want to be an upstanding article, remove this democrat party propaganda and state only truth otherwise you will become just one more of the untrustworthy publist we dont want to read 2600:6C5D:4800:E98:7821:A871:6D1A:D09C (talk) 22:33, 9 September 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.

Attempted_assassination

Hello, Regarding the assassination attempt on Trump, the existing main text content was included in the main text without a separate subtitle, so the content was not highlighted and seemed to be hidden. However, I think that the assassination attempt attempted by the assassin with 8 bullets is the most interesting topic for Trump's life, which could take a person's life, and for those who support Trump, who make up nearly half of the American people. Regarding assigning a separate subtitle to this, please give your opinion on assigning a subtitle, and if there is anything to revise or supplement the content. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of section headings is navigation, not emphasis. It is difficult to assess the relative importance of aspects of a subject when events are recent, but it seems improbable that a minor wounding will end up being a particularly important aspect of a former President's life. VQuakr (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Even though 45th President of U.S. dodged the bullet by an inch, saving his life, and the bullet wound be not be a minor injury, anyone who reading this article would have died if the bullet had hit any human in the face by an inch, and it would have been 100% fatal.

If we look more specifically at the evidence,

If you look at the attached video below, all eight bullets were aimed at the former president, and if the former president had not been able to dodge in time, that is, if he had not turned his head, he would have died at the scene.

• If you look at the specific time analyzed in the 24 minutes video, if you look at the attached video from 16 minutes 01 seconds to 16 minutes 07 seconds, you can see that the 5 seconds video clip, with 3D modeling, shows that the Presidential assassin's bullet was actually aimed to kill President Trump, and that President Trump dodged it by just an inch to save his life. the eight bullets by the assassin surely can kill anyone who is reading this article as you understand.

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a lot of ifs, and WP doesn't speculate. Trump did turn his head — for a reason other than literally dodging bullets — and ended up with a minor injury and an "iconic" picture that, just like the shooting, appears to be yesterday's news and something to be monetized. The shooting didn't change Trump's campaign strategy and rhetoric. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

More likely the sharpshooter was just aiming to scare him or muss up his hair. Just adding speculation the contrary for balance. While the authorities stated they were investigating the marksman's history and social media profile, I have not seen any conclusions as to his motivations or intended outcome. We really know nothing except the outcome -- nothing for Trump, and the tragic death and injuries among his audience. It's therefore dubious even to call this an attempted assassination. We do not know the shooter's intent or attempted intent or intended attempt. If Trump starts speaking in a glass cage, as has been proposed, that may thrust this incident back into the news. SPECIFICO talk 16:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

We got by RS and not insane theories. So let's just stick to what almost every high quality source says, which is it was an assassination attempt. We need to stop with the personal research you two. PackMecEng (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Pushing baseless conspiracy theories, insane theories, personal research — will you be done with the denigration any time soon? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The editing of this article is actually a reality show called "Get Trump". In the current episode there is a contest to see how minimal the presentation of the assassination attempt can get. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, then our "show" lost to Britannica. They mention the felony convictions in the first paragraph of the lead, the other indictments and the civil suits in the second paragraph, and the impeachments in the third one. You have to scroll waaay down to find the short paragraph on the assassination attempt. Quote: "His injury was minor." I'm not sure whether we're ahead of or also lost to Conservapedia. They have a seven-paragraph section entitled "assassination attempt" which mentions everything from the "J6 witch hunt" to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to Theodore Roosevelt. The one thing they don’t mention is the actual shooting in Butler, PA. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure you're aware it's not denigration if it's well-founded. This page has long had an excess of what PME called personal research and we're not here to perform that kind of analysis—it's too vulnerable to personal bias. Some degree of it is necessary and appropriate, ie editorial judgment, making it impossible to draw a bright line. But we have taken it too far for so long, IMNSHO, that it seems normal. Words like "insane" may be out of line, but you might address the substance of the objection instead of the form. The latter is easy; the former is harder but more important. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Gee, thanks to you, too. (PME: Priority Mail Express, Professional Military Education, Premature Ejaculation?) "Insane" MAY be out of line? I won’t waste my time arguing with the writer of that epithet. As for your arguments, please take a look at the editing history of the "attempted assassination" section. I added it a few weeks ago because of RS at the time. After it got trimmed to the one sentence, I removed the heading, added the Wikilink to the sentence, and moved it into the "2024 campaign" section in chronological order. I have now added "presumed assassination attempt" (as in "appearing to be true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be confirmed") to the sentence, per the cited and other RS. BTW, all I do is "personal research" - of online sources and books I have bought. I don’t have a staff to do it for me, and I prefer not to make up my own facts. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for belatedly responding to the substance. I note that you vociferously object to "insane" one sentence after asking whether "PME" (quite obviously PackMecEng) means premature ejaculation. Here's a mirror. My point is that comments like this one and this one are almost completely divorced from Wikipedia content policy (yours a little better than SPECIFICO's) and have little place in article talk. I think it's time we started to cut down on that, though it would be very difficult to quit cold-turkey. I'm far more concerned about that than what this article says about the shooting. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Declining the mirror — maybe it’s the humidity clogging my brain, but "PME" wasn’t obvious to me as an abbreviation for an editor’s name. It was just another abbreviation I didn’t find at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_abbreviations and then looked up "on the internet", results as expected. As for my "lot of ifs" comment, it was in response to this one by another experienced editor, so I didn’t WP:RS them. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Here's the text of the current version[2], which consists of a single sentence in the article.

"On July 13, 2024, Trump was nicked on the ear by gunfire at a campaign rally in Butler Township, Butler County, Pennsylvania."

Note that it is not called an assassination attempt, which is consistent with SPECIFICO's personal idea that it may not have been that.

This can be compared to the section Assassination attempts in the Gerald Ford article. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO I think we can speculate that as a registered republican who donated to the DNC after witnessing Jan 6, the shooter was attempting to kill the former president, his motive being a fear of Trumps return to power and the percieved resulting threat to the republic? Halbalbador (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

No WE can't speculate about anything (see wp:or). Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Got your facts in the wrong order. Crooks donated $15 to a get-out-the-vote site on January 20, 2021, and registered as a Republican in September 2021, i.e., both after witnessing Jan 6. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Noting that he did, in fact, start speaking from behind bulletproof glass like you said. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the place where the assassin fired eight bullets at Trump, if it is said that this was not an assassination attempt, it will be seen as representing the opinions of supporters of the Democratic Party in the United States who are trying to downplay the assassination attempt. I think that an objective view on this should be based on the fact that the major American media outlets, such as the National Broadcasting Company (NBC), CBS (formerly the Columbia Broadcasting System), the American Broadcasting Company (ABC), and the Fox Broadcasting Company (Fox), have stated that the assassin fired several bullets at President Trump and that it was an assassination attempt. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:NAVLIST,

I will replace the previous normal campaign photo with an image of the related to the assassination attempt, as this is a significantly more impactful and relevant event for the section. Given the gravity of the incident, readers will likely find this image more engaging and informative.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

That photo is not representative of his campaign and should not be used in that manner. Show his two-fisted Trump Dance. Much more emblemmatic of his rallies than a one-shot exception. SPECIFICO talk 02:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I think the Two Fist Trump Dance would also add to the symbolism of the rally. If you noticed a photo that shows the rally dynamically, please post it. How about adding a suitable photo related to the assassination attempt? For example, a photo that shows how far away the assassin was from Trump. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Injury, scratch, nick, etc.

We can't say he was injured. It's not specific enough and it sounds like a laceration to the kidney or Ronald Reagan style near-death lung puncture. He was scratched. As he explained to the world in his convention speech, the ear is richly supplied with blood vessels - hence the mess on his cheek. SPECIFICO talk 02:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

We can say injured/injury precisely because it's very general. It's a word nobody can dispute, so it's hardly OR to say it. Not so for scratched/scratch; if you want to say that you'll need to show widespread use in RS. From what I've read, I don't think you can.

But injured/injury is not all we say as of yesterday. Since it's very general, we add more information as follows: "Former White House physician Ronny Jackson said he had seen the injury and that it was a two-centimeters-wide gunshot wound to Trump's right ear." I don't think that sounds anything like a laceration to the kidney or Ronald Reagan style near-death lung puncture. It certainly doesn't sound like a scratch. Jackson arguably has credibility issues, but we're attributing his words to him rather than accepting his words as Truth and stating them as fact using wikivoice. Compare and contrast: "The injury was a two-centimeters-wide gunshot wound to Trump's right ear."

Unless/until medical records are released/reported, I doubt we can do much better without OR and without consuming too much space for this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that he was injured.

Let's say the person reading this was grazed by a bullet. If it was the same wound, if it was a fall and the same amount of blood was shed, or if it was a knife wound and the same amount of blood was shed, it could be expressed as a scratch.

However, since the wound is only 1 inch inside the face, it is a bullet wound that could take the life of the person reading this article, or if the bullet hit the inside of the face, it is reasonable to say that it is an injury.

Even if it is the same wound, if the cause is a bullet wound that could actually take the life of a person, it is medically considered an injury, and for this reason, major media outlets around the world reported that it was an obvious assassination attempt that saved the life by only 1 inch. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Since we’re wading into the knowns, i.e., the details the Trump campaign released to the press, then we should also wade into the known unknowns RS mentioned. AP writes about the memo that was written by Jackson and released by the campaign: The bullet track, he said, "produced a 2 cm wide wound that extended down to the cartilaginous surface of the ear", i.e., an 0.79" skin-deep furrow, and that no sutures were required. (Or, as Jackson said earlier, the bullet took "a little bit off the top of his ear".) The AP source also says that the Trump campaign declined "to disclose medical records or hold briefings with the doctors who treated him at the hospital". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks like there's a lot of contortions and contrivances here trying to minimize the close to death situation where a sniper on a rooftop with a powerful assault rifle shot at former president and presidential candidate Trump and got so close to killing him that the bullet hit his ear. The seriousness of the attack is further illustrated by the shooting death of a person nearby and the critical injury by gunshot of two others in the same attack with the assault rifle. Trump was very fortunate that he was not killed. Yet some editors are trying to diminish the significant danger to Trump's life by focusing attention on the minor nature of the wound. This reminds me of a time many decades ago when someone asked, "Have You No Sense of Decency?" Bob K31416 (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Your comment (rant) is no more policy-based than those of the editors you're complaining about, and violates the spirit if not the letter of NOTFORUM, AGF, and NPA. Just because something is true, if in fact it's true, that doesn't mean it has any place on this page. If an editor Has No Sense of Decency, shaming them here is not going to force them to grow some. Stay focused on policy, not editor motives; if that's not enough, the AP2 area of the project is a lost cause anyway. And that may well be the case. I suggest realism and pragmatism. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 September 2024

Add more information of 2024 campaign and include details from the two debates. -Bob :) (talk) 03:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

See Also section

Could you please add a "See also" section to the Donald Trump topic? Or maybe I can add one? From my understanding, it is missing from the Donald Trump Subject, so I would appreciate your opinion on this. There are candidates for the US presidential election and the current US presidents with "See also section" , , "See Also section" makes it very accessible, so even if there is a link in the text, the main related parts can be accessed right away, so I think this is necessary. By adding "See also" to the Donald Trump section to correct the imbalance with other Wikipedia relevant contents.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 04:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the section. It's optional, and this article is already longer than most. Per MOS:NAVLIST, Editors should try to put themselves in the readers' frame of mind and ask "Where will I likely want to go after reading this article? " Are the three lists in the "See also" section you added (List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots, List of United States presidential elections by popular vote margin, and List of United States presidential candidates by number of votes received)? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Per MOS:NAVLIST, I've added navigational lists, which benefit readers by providing easy access to relevant Trump-related information. Given the article's length and comprehensive nature, a "see also" section is essential. This feature caters to readers who prefer a concise overview by allowing them to quickly locate specific topics. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

After identifying the parts that need to be linked to the main article, I will also add a "See Also section" to add content that is not in the existing text or that may be of interest to those interested in Wikipedia in the run-up to the November 2024 US presidential election. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

In the case of Barack Obama, there is a See Also item, categorized in detail. For the convenience of users, I will add this for Donald Trump as well. If you have any other opinions about this, please let me know in advance.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The article is too long to have one. There is simply no room for unnecessary content. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

In the case of Wikipedia, as you can add the necessary content, I think it is fair to include the necessary content since it is the user's choice to access the content. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. This article is too long and growing and there is already a very lengthy list of article links in the sidebar. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The sidebar is what I mean by that, in the 10+ years I've been accessing Wikipedia, I've never used the sidebar and See Also is actually used a lot, so it's definitely something that users need. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 08:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump-related topics that passed DUE and RS to ensure fairness and accessibility

I think it is unfair to restrict users from conveniently accessing various related article topics directly related to Donald Trump that passed DUE and RS.

Since the main text is longer than other topics, the convenience of access and the ability to select should be improved. In other words, this Donald Trump content is even more - See Also section is a necessary function to increase accessibility and selectivity for the numerous users accessing Wikipedia around the world.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 09:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Body Odor

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.

---

Multiple notable sources have alleged a disquieting odor emanating from Trump. Should these allegations be included? GobsPint (talk) 05:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Without sources provided? No. With sources? Still probably no EvergreenFir (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

How many sources? Which sources? Provide some sample links and quotes. TarnishedPath^talk 06:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Silly Trival nonsense. Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Appears to be based on Adam Kinzinger's interview on Jimmy Kimmel Live!. Kimmel asked Kinzinger about his December 2023 tweet mentioning the alleged odor. Also, the October 1989 SPY magazine (pg. 134) had dubbed Trump "Stinky" as an alternate to "short-fingered vulgarian". "Short-fingered" seems to have hit a nerve because Trump kept harping on the size of his hands/digits for decades, but he doesn't appear to have objected to either "vulgarian" or "stinky". The Kimmel episode got some coverage in The Wrap, HuffPo, but it's not what I'd call hard news. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems like material about an alleged "disquieting odor emanating from Trump" would fit in with a Trump article emanating a disquieting odor. Maybe Harris will bring this up at the debate? If so, definitely put it in. For more information on the condition, see the Wikipedia article Body odor. "And that's the way it is." Bob K31416 (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

If it's not a fire hazard, omit. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

This is just leftie media stuff because the ancient NY courtroom stunk and the defense counsel were gagging. There's no credible source of the odor. SPECIFICO talk 18:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

That would definitely be a BLP violation to put in this article. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

No-it is completely non-encyclopedic and subjective. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Tell that to Coco. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 12 September 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 September 2024

Why does it not say here that he LOST the 2020 election to Joe Biden? Who cares if he thinks he did not, the 46th President of the United States is Joe Biden, so Donald Trump (nee DRUMPH) lost the 2020 election and it should be noted as such. This is a request and it is a FACT that is missing from your page thus if not updated, his page should be removed as it is FALSE and not worthy of being posted on-line anywhere because the fact are facts. DONALD TRUMP (nee DRUMPH) lost the election in 2020 and should be listed at the beginning of any factual biography. Otherwise, WIKIPEDIA is well subversive and "fake news-information" according to this ex-president! Stevony6 (talk) 03:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done:Take your rant elsewhere. This article does say that he lost the 2020 election. Meters (talk) 03:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, improper use of the edit request facility. Please read and follow the instructions. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The lead is arranged in chronological order, so Trump’s 2020 election loss, his refusal to concede, and the attempt to overturn the election results are in the fifth paragraph. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 09:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Lack of Sources for Opening Section

The introductory text contains uncited claims that would benefit from supporting sources:

• "During the campaign, his political positions were described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist."
• "His election and policies sparked numerous protests."
• "He was the only U.S. president without prior military or government experience."
• "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged, racist, and misogynistic."

Regardless of one's stance on Trump, I am surprised these have been allowed to stand with no reliable sources cited for such claims. MollyRealized (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

See body content for related citations. Lead summarizes body and lead does not need to include redundant citations at the cost of even a little readability. If lead does not accurately summarize body, that should be fixed. If body does not cite adequately, that should be fixed. If body does not conform to content policy, that should be fixed. But we don't need lead citations to prove that editors here know better than to put unsourced content in the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Molly, you have bumped into an article where the official consensus is to avoid citations in the lead. See #58 at #Current consensus. That leaves the door open for very limited use of inline citations if absolutely necessary. Otherwise, you can be sure that with myriad editors of all political persuasions who edit this page, if there is content in the lead that does not have a well-sourced counterpart in the body of the article, they will quickly address the problem. I suggest that you search the page for the key words in the lead that are also in the body. You should be able to find the citations. If you find a problem, feel free to start a new thread and address it. We are always open to suggested improvements, and we are all very human and prone to error, so do help us. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 September 2024 (2)

UserGav (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)=

Hi I'd like to help out with our Writing I'm a very good writer who just grad from Yale Uni Would look forward to helping out.

 Not done: Not an edit request. This article is extended-confirmed protected. You will not be able to edit it until your account is at least 30 days old and you have made at least 500 edits. Meters (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit requests are not requests for permission to edit. They are requests for authorized editors to make specific edits on your behalf. Common misunderstanding. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Russia in third paragraph of lead

Resolved

 – The proposal I made here to expand the sentence in question did not achieve consensus support. I started another section to instead discuss deleting the sentence in question. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The third paragraph of the lead currently says this:

A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump.

Let’s change it to this:

Russia unlawfully interfered in that election in Trump’s favor, but investigators have reached no consensus that the Trump campaign unlawfully colluded with Russia, or that Russia affected the election outcome.

The latter is more neutral and more informative. The current version refers to a “special counsel” investigation, which includes an investigation of Trump himself, but we completely omit that no charges against Trump were brought or recommended. Instead, we now suggest that investigators may have found Trump committed a crime, that he may have been charged with it, that he may have admitted it, that he may have become president because of it, etc. In other words, the current sentence is too vague as it stands now, and thus too likely to mislead. I don’t know of any other BLP lead that says the subject was investigated for an offense, and then lets that information dangle without elaboration in the lead.

There were several official investigations of Russian interference in 2016, so let’s speak globally instead of just about the Mueller investigation. And let’s accurately summarize the main results: (1) Russia interfered, (2) no unlawful collusion by Trump has been charged or proved, and (3) no effect on the election outcome has been proved. I am purposely omitting wikilinks and footnotes for now, for simplicity, but we can get to that later. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support : the updated sentence; it's clear and removed misleading information or potential misunderstanding to the previous issues. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

That's some pretty imaginative interpretation of a simple, straightforward sentence. You brought this up half a year ago, and we've also had at least one discussion about adding this context: The report revealed sweeping Russian interference and detailed how Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged it, believing "it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts". The current wording is the lowest common denominator and as neutral as it gets. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Watered-down and weaselly. Zaathras (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Yep Watered-down and weaselly. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't think the lead needs to state things that didn't happen, nor do I think it has room for that. I understand the desire to combat false internet chatter. Self-quote from previous section: Readers who stop reading at the end of the lead [...] will always leave less than fully informed, and that's on them. We should agonize less about accommodating those readers, in my opinion. I also don't see the dangling that you do. (Becoming my mantra: Lblinks would help.) ―Mandruss ☎ 19:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Saying that Trump was investigated by a special counsel, without saying anything in the lead about the investigation’s outcome is very poor writing. Compare the lead about Steven Hatfill which says, “He became the subject of extensive media coverage beginning in mid-2002, when he was a suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks.” Then the Hatfill lead says what the result of the investigation was. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Where does it say Trump was investigated by a special counsel? Not in the lead. If you're saying the lead is misleading after reading the body, that's some pretty weird logic. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

That’s what a “special counsel” is. The special counsel was appointed because the Trump administration had a conflict of interest. The Wikipedia article special counsel says it’s for a “particular case of suspected wrongdoing for which a conflict of interest exists for the usual prosecuting authority.” Obviously, the special counsel investigated Trump. Obviously Russia had no conflict of interest, it wasn’t the investigating authority. Plus it’s common knowledge that Trump was investigated. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Well I'm just not that concerned about what's "obvious" to you or "common knowledge" in your opinion. My thinking is limited to what the article says, particularly in the lead which is the topic of this thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Apparently you are unaware what the words “special counsel” in the lead mean. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Again: Stop pandering to lazy readers. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

First of all, WP:Lead says, “The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic.” Secondly, if a non-lazy reader reads the entire article body, it 100% clearly confirms that Trump was investigated. Many readers will read our lead, few will read the whole article body to find the results of the investigation. Please consider that it’s very unwise for us to say in the lead that the special counsel conducted an investigation without saying what the investigation found regarding Trump. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:Lead says, “The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic.” So vague and subject to interpretation as to be fairly useless here. We necessarily omit a ton of significant information from the lead.

if a non-lazy reader reads the entire article body, it 100% clearly confirms that Trump was investigated. And 100% clearly confirms that investigators have reached no consensus that the Trump campaign unlawfully colluded with Russia, or that Russia affected the election outcome.

And I'm not asking readers to read the entire article body. But, if they care about becoming informed about a particular issue, say, the special counsel investigation, I can reasonably ask them to read that body section. If they can't be bothered to do that, it's a clear sign they don't care much about being informed about it. Far be it from me to say what they should care about. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

It would be better to entirely omit the sentence in the lead, than to cherry pick the one finding of the special counsel that reflects most poorly on Trump. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I'm all for omitting stuff from the lead. That isn't what you proposed. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Should I start a new section? Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Magic 8 Ball - Instrument Of Evil? (2426454804).jpg ―Mandruss ☎ 22:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Mañana. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support - It's not going to do our readers any harm. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

"It won't do any harm" is a very poor argument for anything. It's also false in this case, since adding unnecessary content to the bloated lead is always harmful. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - The current text is concise while providing known info. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per O3000 Zaathras and Slatersteven. Very watered down. State the facts as they are. Keep the current version. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

IRS Audit findings

Propose adding a sentence summarizing the findings thus far of an IRS audit (covered by AP, ProPublica, NYT, CNN) to read something like:

As of May 2024, an ongoing IRS audit found Trump allegedly double-dipped on tax losses from his Chicago skyscraper, which could cost him upwards of $100 million in back taxes and penalties. Superb Owl (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Any WP:WEIGHT evaluation needs to take into account that the article is already too long (see preceding section). You might say the DUE bar is necessarily a bit higher here. The article already includes a lot that is out of place in a top-level biography, but the existence of bad stuff does not justify the addition of more bad stuff. I can't see spending the space for what amounts to a hypothetical at this point, coverage or no. It certainly does not pass the WP:10YT test. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I respect the work you have done trying to keep this article more concise (that can't be easy and I am happy to help out with that a bit).
I respectfully disagree on 10YT, and think it would easily pass that test. If his indictments are notable even if he has not gone all the way through the appeals process or his impeachments are notable even though the Senate did not remove him, then how is this not notable? Also, how many presidents have been accused by the IRS of tax fraud? Superb Owl (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

If his indictments are notable [...] - I could dismantle the false comparisons piece by piece, but I'm of the opinion that such apples-and-oranges discussion rarely bears fruit. No doubt someone else will be happy to engage you with that. how many presidents have been accused by the IRS of tax fraud? I don't know, you tell me. Again, I don't feel we can afford the space for an unresolved accusation with a mere 100 mil at stake. I haven't read the sources closely; is there an open criminal investigation? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Just in the body under wealth where all the other tax info is, or in the lead? DN (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Wherever makes sense but probably tax info Superb Owl (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed that our "Real estate" section failed to mention Trump's "tallest and, at least for now, [] last major construction project". I just corrected the omission. A major project resulting in more than $600 million in losses and an alleged tax fraud of $100 million — deserves a mention. The section has an inline link to Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)#Tax deductions which has a few more details. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments? Trump International Hotel and Tower Chicago

The short paragraph on the building (see also above section) was reverted with the edit summary "overdetail". As I said before, Trump's last major and tallest ever construction project (92 stories, hotel, retails space, luxury condos) resulting in more than $600 million in losses and an alleged tax fraud of $100 million deserves a mention. Thoughts? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 07:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

There's already been quite a bit of relevant information written about Donad Trump, so I think that part is "excessive detail."Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Can we be sure it was 92 stories? TrumpORG had a continuous bad habit of over-zealous counting of floors in almost every building they ever constructed. A bit like counting the number of people at a rally! Just sayin'. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 12:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Does the building have a lobby? If it does, it depends, it seems, on whether he can get away with claiming that the building's lobby is the equivalent of more stories than its actual height. He seems to have started a trend in creative floor numbering, and buyers of luxury condos might find themselves living at much less exalted altitudes than the brochure suggested. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how it is entirely undue, ie "over-detail". It seems brief, relevant and significant enough for inclusion in the body, but I would only mention it as "currently under IRS investigation audit/inquiry etc", the dollar amount might seem somewhat superfluous to others. 100 million dollars may not seem like a lot. Must be nice...Cheers. DN (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

agree with including and excluding dollar amount Superb Owl (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to interpret "somewhat superfluous". The reverter didn't discuss their stated reason (overdetail), so I reinserted the text without the dollar amounts. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

Resolved

 – A proposal here by User:Seananony to expand the lead sentence is not supported by consensus, but consensus does support adding a second sentence to the opening paragraph that mentions both his loss in 2020 and current candidacy: “He lost his bid for re-election in 2020, and is now the Republican nominee for president in 2024.”

How about matching this sentence in Harris's blp in the first paragraph? Harris is the Democratic Party's nominee for U.S. president in the November 5, 2024 election. Seananony (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Undone. It's his third go-around, and it's better placed within the context of his domination of the GOP despite his loss the last time around and the party's losses or lackluster performance in the last two elections under his leadership. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree. "Harris does it" is a poor argument for anything. You could just as easily be at Harris saying "Trump doesn't do it". There is no need for this kind of consistency between any two articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

This edit removes from the lead paragraph that Trump is the current GOP nominee for president. In the history of Wikipedia, no major party presidential nominee has had such information removed from the opening BLP paragraph. Such removal obviously violates MOS:OPEN. The opening paragraph should “establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

See also MOS:FIRSTBIO: “The opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources….However, try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread relevant information over the lead paragraph.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

To be clearer, I don't necessarily oppose the addition; I just oppose the OP's argument for it. As to the addition, count me close to neutral/uninterested but leaning include. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant Here another suggestion:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021, lost his bid for re-election in 2020, and is the Republican nominee for president in 2024. Seananony (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Here’s your proposal with wikilinks:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021, lost his bid for re-election in 2020, and is the Republican nominee for president in 2024.

This addresses the objection that his loss the last time should not be omitted. I support this new proposal as well as the initial proposal above in this section. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

In my view, amending current consensus item 50 yet again should require a better reason than making the first sentence of the article cumbersomely long. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I quoted lots of policy-based reasons above. But here’s a better version that splits the cumbersome sentence:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. He lost his bid for re-election in 2020, and is now the Republican nominee for president in 2024.

Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I support that. As a nice side benefit, it would appease those who insist that one-sentence paragraphs = poor writing. This would NOT amend #50, btw, as it applies only to the first sentence. This being equally prominent, it might warrant a new list item. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

It’s an official Wikipedia guideline, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout: “The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text….” Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Minimized, not zero. The guideline wisely leaves room for exceptions. That single sentence did not inhibit the flow of the text. It was a perfectly fine intro to the remainder of the lead. "Trump in a nutshell; paragraph break; now more detail." But it's nice when bad arguments can be avoided. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I have boldly edited that guideline;[3] we'll see if it flies. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, goody. What happened to how important would this be in this article the day after the election? As opposed to the indictments, felony verdict, impeachment, and other minor details ... And about that consensus: that's the "it's been 48 hours, and two editors agree with me, habemus consensus" Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x Based on how important this will be the day after the election, the lead paragraph should definitely state he's the Republican nominee, though it will need to be updated after the election, of course. I honestly don't understand arguing against including it, or how that could be controversial. Seananony (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x PS: I would not be opposed to also including "and convicted felon". Seananony (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

2024 campaign abortion statements and policies

This keeps being covered in the top RS discussion of his campaign. Needs to be mentioned. SPECIFICO talk 16:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Recentism (that "2024" is a clue). Doesn't need to be mentioned in this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it's the next step building on his one great achievement in life, overturning Roe. By your argument, we would cut everything after mid-2023. SPECIFICO talk 03:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I would cut about 50% of everything post-2014. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like something that should be covered in Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign, not here. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, this is not about his campaign this is Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign, and this is where that belongs. Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Clarify, the page you linked to, is about Trump's 2024 campaign. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Trump's personal views on abortion are fine, but in the context of his campaign I'm less convinced it belongs here. DN (talk) 04:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Belongs in his 2024 campaign page, not here. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Denial of isolationism

Resolved

 – My proposal to put in the article body that Trump denied being an isolationist is not supported by consensus, but instead consensus is to remove “isolationist” from the lead which is the only place in this article that mentions it (his alleged isolationism is covered in another article about his foreign policy).

This edit removes Trump’s denial from the article body that he’s an isolationist, citing WP:MANDY which is an essay. WP:DENIALS takes precedence. See also WP:NOTMANDY. Note that we say in the lead that he’s been characterized as an isolationist. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

We never say in the body that he's been described as isolationist, so we shouldn't say so in the lead. Honestly, we shouldn't be spending any lead space on how his political positions were described during the 2016 campaign. If it stays in the lead, it should be mentioned in the body, and then we can evaluate whether Trump's statement is due. It looks like we were citing an interview: have those comments gotten any other coverage? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, we shouldn't say so in the lead, and so I support removing either the word or the whole sentence from the lead (or both). If the word is removed from the lead then it can stay out of the article body. This denial was reported in the NYT, and he repeated the denial after the 2016 election, see here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Some, of the "does he know what that term means" variety. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

2016 campaign: Trump is now running his third campaign, and he is still described as populist, protectionist, nationalist, promoting conspiracy theories, making many false and misleading racially charged, racist, and misogynistic statements, only worse than the first time around. Plus the violent and authoritarian statements, the "Big Lie", and increasing claims of election interference by the deep state/his opponents. Shouldn't that be reflected in the lead somehow? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Nutshell at WP:MANDY: [...] The subject of an article is not exempt from the ordinary rules of reliability as a source on themselves. I would posit that Donald Trump is hardly a reliable source on himself. Need I count the ways? He says he's religious but can't recite a favorite passage from the Bible. That's one of a few dozen examples, I'd estimate. How much evidence do we need that he says he's whatever he thinks will earn him votes?

Yes, lead summarizes body and lead should not include anything not in body. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

FYI, by mentioning Trump's denials as reported in a reliable source, Trump isn't being used as a reliable source. It's not a matter of whether or not he is an isolationist, just that he says he is not an isolationist. Bob K31416 (talk)

WP:BLP says, “If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too.” There is no exception for BLP subjects who are believers in God but cannot quote chapter and verse from the Bible. But if we don’t include the allegation then we needn’t include the denial. It’s worth repeating that the word “isolationist” is “the most feared epithet in the U.S. foreign policy establishment”. It’s an “odious epithet” having “pejorative connotations”. We already say he’s a non-interventionist in the article body, which is fine, well-cited, not denied by Trump, and has some similarities with isolationism. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

So let's remove "isolationist" from the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Mandruss Agreed, it should be in the body. Lots on his foreign policy page:

As president, Trump described himself as a nationalist while espousing views that have been characterized as isolationist, non-interventionist, and protectionist, although the "isolationist" label has been disputed, including by Trump himself, and periods of his political career have been described by the alternative term “semi-isolationist.” Seananony (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Sources

I think it’s enough to say in the article body that he’s non-interventionist. If we get into alleged isolationism, reliable sources differ, and we’d probably need to include denial. The non-interventionist already covers a lot of what isolationist covers, whereas non-interventionist is undisputed by reliable sources (and by Trump himself). Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

"The swelling US military posture around the world under Trump has served as only the latest piece of confirmation that Trump would not be the non-interventionist president that some had hoped he would be." CNN 2018 Bob K31416 (talk) 05:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

America First (policy) is one of his core campaign theres. It's not relevant whether he knows or cares what that means. SPECIFICO talk 18:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Another suggestion for intro

The intro jumps around a lot. How about combining these two sentences: Trump won the 2016 presidential election as the Republican Party nominee against Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton while losing the popular vote. The Mueller special counsel investigation determined that Russia engaged in election interference to favor Trump. During the campaign, his political positions were described as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. His election and policies sparked numerous protests. He was the only U.S. president without prior military or government experience.

Here's my suggestion: Trump won the 2016 presidential election as the Republican Party nominee against Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton while losing the popular vote.{{efn|name=electoral-college|Presidential elections in the U.S. are decided by the Electoral College, becoming the first president in U.S. history without prior military or government experience. Seananony (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Seananony Sorry, that didn't copy well, but anyway you can see I'm combining the first and last sentences of the quote. Seananony (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

If it's considered important, those two things can be made adjacent without combining them into one sentence. Without good reason, sentences should not be made that long because it impacts readability. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Notes

Lead sentences about being current nominee

User:Seananony made this good-faith edit deleting the following sentence from the last paragraph of the lead: “Since leaving office, Trump has continued to dominate the Republican Party and is their candidate again in the 2024 presidential election.” It’s true some of this repeats info in the opening paragraph, but later paragraphs of a lead often elaborate on stuff in the opening paragraph. The problem here is it was more like repetition than elaboration. So I’d suggest restoring the sentence, but editing it to include further information, perhaps the name of his VP nominee, or who got the second-most delegates, or who his opponent in the general election is. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant

I undid it. I like your suggestions. Seananony (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Removing sentence about special counsel in lead

Resolved

 – This proposal of mine to delete the sentence about the special counsel in the third paragraph of the lead has clearly not garnered consensus here, but what has garnered consensus is changing it to, “The Mueller investigation established that Russia interfered in the election to favor Trump". Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Resolved, really? Changing the sentence to the version you changed it to wasn't the subject of the discussion, and it wasn't considered by several of the editors. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Consider this sentence that’s now in the lead:

A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump.

I suggest deleting this sentence, because the special counsel investigation was a much bigger deal when it was still an open question whether Trump would be indicted for colluding with Russia. The special counsel decided not to. That happened years ago, and there’s now more to say about Trump in this lead because of later events.

Based on conversation a couple sections up on this talk page, there’s no consensus to lengthen this sentence to explain that investigators didn’t find evidence to indict Trump or his campaign, or to mention that investigators haven’t been able to say that the Russian interference affected the election outcome. That would have provided important context and clarification.

It’s very hard to justify keeping the words “A special counsel investigation established that” since the remaining words of the sentence are undisputed. I propose to just omit the whole sentence. Unfortunately, foreign governments have often interfered in U.S. elections (and vice versa), but those have generally not been conspiracies with U.S. politicians, so they’ve typically not been covered in the leads of those politicians’ BLPs. I’m not suggesting here to remove or shorten anything in this article’s body. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I support this removal per proposer. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. OP didn't get his way failed to achieve consensus in Talk:Donald_Trump#Russia_in_third_paragraph_of_lead and now just wants to go scorched earth, simply omit the passage entirely, which would be the whitewashing of an important event. Zaathras (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC) (updated verbiage) Zaathras (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Denied. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras: Your comment is way out of line and you know it. Please strike. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Mandruss - user talk for that kind of comment. SPECIFICO talk 22:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

1. Contrary to many years of accepted practice here, as I'm sure you know. 2. I doubt user talk would result in a strike. It stands a better chance here. 3. In any case, this shows less experienced editors that we have a higher standard of behavior at this article. 4. Hardly an undue distraction, until it becomes a drawn-out debate. 5. In any case, user talk for that kind of comment, no? Your correction belongs here but mine does not? Make that make sense. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Bud, the OP literally stated "It would be better to entirely omit the sentence in the lead, than to cherry pick the one finding of the special counsel that reflects most poorly on Trump." in the previous section. It is not a wild or specious observation that the OP's 1st choice was modification, and when that failed, the backup choice is complete omission. "Scorched earth" is not such a severe pejorative that it justifies your attempt to censor my initial entry. So, kindly with sugar and cherries, do not do that again. Not your place. If you wish to hate everything after my initial comment, even this one, I permit that. Zaathras (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment on content—Bud—not contributor. I did not invent that principle. The initial proposal failed and this one is an alternative proposal. There is nothing improper about it; it happens all the time. So, kindly with sugar and cherries, do not do that again. I'm not going to re-revert because I don't edit war. As for any future such cases, I may well "do it again", depending on my mood. Not your place. Wrong again. Until we have an independent Wikipedia police force (I'd vote for that), it's everybody's place. You have NO CASE here. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

We also have the principle of WP:PACT. Zaathras (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

My NPA policy trumps your PACT essay, and I'd posit it has a lot more community support. That's why your PACT essay is an essay. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

It's a good thing that there were no NPAs then. Your opinion if one is or is not carries no weight, I'm afraid. I have struck (not censored) some of the wording, so if that is not to your liking now, that would be a you problem. Zaathras (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

You haven't just stricken, you have also inserted, and without indicating such per WP:REDACT, thus destroying context. For the record, this was your comment until just now. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Um, that's kind of the point of striking text - one restates what was previously said in different words. We're done here. Zaathras (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Um, that reasoning is contrary to REDACT. Without underscoring what's new, it's impossible to tell what was previously said. Again, I didn't invent the principle. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose removal. simple, straightforward, significant, sourced and succinct. SPECIFICO talk 22:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Why? There is a considerable amount of coverage on this throughout Trump's political career and beyond. It remains a significant point in the minds of security experts and historians. What evidence have you presented here that suggests it is now insignificant and will not be discussed and studied well over ten years from now, let alone since 2016? DN (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Who says everything significant has to go in the lead? I already said explicitly that this proposal would not affect the article body. It’s better to leave it entirely in the article body than to have the sentence we have now in the lead. I proposed a way to improve it, that was rejected, so now I’m instead proposing to delete it in the lead, but leave the article body as-is. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

No one, including myself, is suggesting everything significant has to go in the lead. Nor has anyone made it clear why either of these suggestions offer any substantial improvement. DN (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Not to put to fine a point on it, but the article Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections isn't likely to remove Trump's name anytime soon. DN (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

We could add that Mueller dispatched numerous Trump cronies and staff to the hoosegow, later to be pardoned by Trump without the usual process. SPECIFICO talk 22:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

You apparently want to pack the sentence full of as much anti-Trump material as possible, while studiously avoiding any mention (1) that the special counsel decided not to indict him; (2) that he has always denied the accusation; (3) that no investigators have concluded the interference made any difference; (4) that foreign election interference is unfortunately common as in the U.S. interference in the 1996 Russian election, etc, etc. I don’t understand why you oppose NPOV so much, it seems like a laudable Wikipedia policy. Not well enforced, but laudable in principle. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Focus on content, not contributor. This kind of comment is not only inappropriate but guaranteed to be ineffective. Why do we have to keep making this point with highly experienced editors? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose special counsel concluded that John Bois (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose for now. Still waiting on a response with evidence as to why this may be considered UNDUE or non-neutral. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It’s poorly written because the words “A special counsel investigation established that” are superfluous. Reliable sources are unanimous that Russia interfered, there’s no need to attribute it to the special counsel. If the special counsel is mentioned, that implies Trump was investigated, because that’s what a special counsel is for, and so we’d be obliged to mention that the special counsel did not find sufficient evidence to charge Trump with any wrongdoing, just like we do with other people who are investigated, see e.g. Steven Hatfill. Even if people somehow think mentioning a special counsel doesn’t suggest an investigation of Trump, still there was such an investigation, and its outcome is just as relevant (more so) to the Trump BLP as whether Russia interfered. Since editors here have decided they don’t want to change the sentence, I suggested to get rid of it, not because it’s insignificant, but because it can be adequately covered in the article body. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I imagine the contents of the body that are not covered in the lead has already been discussed quite a bit. What new evidence is there that should give cause to revisit previous consensus? Why compare Trump to Hatfill? DN (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

What previous consensus? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Has this never been brought up before now? DN (talk) 02:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if it hasn't been discussed. That doesn't constitute a consensus that shouldn't be revisited without new argument or a change in the external situation. That's reserved for explicit consensuses—prior discussions showing clear consensus, with or without a consensus list entry. It's a fairly high bar. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, I began my original response with "I imagine...". Forgive me if it was presumptuous of me to assume that there had been some form of consensus, explicit or otherwise, but I meant no harm by it. It's been in the lead for some time now. The first discussion I could see was around March 2017 / archive 51, but I could be wrong. Who knows how many since then.

Beyond that, considering he is the current GOP presidential nominee about 3 months out from the election, the timing seems a bit off to assume this aspect of his administration has faded into the ether without RS confirming this claim.

Side note, there is also a new book coming out in September called “Interference: The Inside Story of Trump, Russia, and the Mueller Investigation”.

Cheers. DN (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

AThing, have you actually read Mueller's report? Trump most certainly was investigated, and his hobbling of the inquiry was noted at length. That, along with DOJ policy against charging a sitting POTUS are the reasons Trump was not indicted. SPECIFICO talk 02:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Way deep down in the obscure depths of this BLP is this accurate and balanced sentence: “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.[527][528]” Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

So? The lead also doesn't mention the second clause in this accurate and balanced sentence: "The report revealed sweeping Russian interference and detailed how Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged it, believing it would benefit them electorally." Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 07:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

And the prevailing evidence was limited by Trump's non-cooperation and likely obstruction. Also and: please stop repeating the Trump/Barr lie "no collusion". SPECIFICO talk 16:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Mueller Report: “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government and its election interference activities”. Deal with it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's not cherry-pick and instead try to find some consensus, please. DN (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Misrepresenting that as you have is not acceptable. SPECIFICO talk 16:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

If we can't find consensus here, perhaps we need an RfC so you two can cool off. DN (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: no one has disagreed with the statement at the start of this section that, “It’s very hard to justify keeping the words ‘A special counsel investigation established that’ since the remaining words of the sentence are undisputed.” This in-text attribution is unnecessary, see Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, so I plan to remove that, while leaving the rest of the sentence. This lead doesn’t include footnotes because everything (including Russian interference) is amply supported in the article body. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd oppose such a removal. This isn't simple attribution. I think the status quo is fine, but if there's agreement that a change is needed, I'd also be fine with something like "Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump, a fact established by a special counsel investigation." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Why is it not simple attribution? It was widely reported by all reliable sources both before and after the Mueller Report was written. To the extent this attribution slyly suggests Trump was the subject of a special counsel investigation, shouldn’t we also mention that the investigation didn’t find any collusion by his campaign? Making that determination was the reason why the special counsel was appointed. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm still wondering why we aren't looking at the most recent discussions likely responsible for its inclusion in the first place. We could be beating a dead horse here. DN (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

If the issue of unnecessary attribution was raised before, feel free to give us a link. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I've already stated the reasons for my opposition. If anyone wants to change my mind, they can do the work. DN (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose complete removal. A shortening might work, per AYW's own words: "It’s very hard to justify keeping the words “A special counsel investigation established that” since the remaining words of the sentence are undisputed." If we shorten it, I suggest:

"An investigation found that Russia interfered in the election to favor Trump."

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

That’s fine, User:Valjean, although an editor objected elsewhere that wikilinking “an investigation” to the Mueller investigation would be an Easter Egg. I’m not convinced that’s correct, but in the interest of compromise I suggested “The Mueller investigation found that Russia interfered in the election to favor Trump.” User:Space4Time3Continuum2x then reverted, saying there’s an ongoing discussion, but as far as I know, no one has objected at this talk page to

“The Mueller investigation found that Russia interfered in the election to favor Trump.”. No one has explained what the problem is, if any. The reason it’s better is that “special counsel” implied a special investigation of executive branch officers who would have a conflict investigating themselves, and thus we’d have to say in the lead what the special counsel investigation found not just about Russia but also about the executive branch officers who were investigated for violations of law. Anyway, if no one gives any reason why “The Mueller investigation” is worse than “a special counsel investigation” then I will reinsert it. By the way, Space4Time, please see Don't revert due solely to "no consensus”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

due solely to "no consensus”? What are you talking about? If you'referring to this revert, my edit summary linked to this ongoing discussion that you either considered closed or decided to ignore. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose removal and the suggested shortened sentence (and Anythingyouwant's premature closing of this discussion). "An investigation" — there was more than one: The intelligence agencies and the FBI, the Senate investigation, Special Counsel aka Mueller. If we're going to shorten, then I suggest Russia interfered in the election to favor Trump. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  Russia interfered in the election to favor Trump, with his encouragement. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  I’ll jump back onto this discussion since I was pinged. I didn’t close this discussion about removing the sentence. As for putting into the lead that Trump encouraged the Russian interference, I would support that under two conditions. First, our cited source says, “Trump and his campaign aided or encouraged those interference efforts, even if unwittingly” so we would have to include the unwittingly part. Second, it seems obvious to me that Mueller’s primary mission was to determine whether the Trump campaign unlawfully conspired or coordinated with Russia, and Mueller did not establish such unlawful activity, so we would have to include that too. Otherwise, SPECIFICO’s suggestion is fine. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, you effectively closed it by editing the lead before the discussion had reached a consensus. Unwittingly? puhleaze: "Russia, if you're listening". If the lead doesn't mention whether or not Trump aided or encouraged, we don't have get into that. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  It’s fairly obvious that you disagree with the “unwitting” characterization in our cited source, and you also seem to disagree with the Mueller Report’s conclusion that it could not establish Trump-Russia coordination or conspiracy. You’re welcome to have your own opinions of course, but I wish you would not use them to edit this BLP. You apparently rely on Trump’s statement at a press conference in 2016, urging Russia to help find HRC emails. Trump elaborated the same day in a tweet: “If Russia or any other country or person has Hillary Clinton's 33,000 illegally deleted emails, perhaps they should share them with the FBI!” This seems like a valid thing to say, far short of urging Russia to conspire or coordinate with his campaign, wittingly or not, but I’m willing to follow our sources and put “unwittingly” in the lead. You’re not, but please reconsider. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

If there is consensus for "The Mueller investigation found that Russia interfered in the election to favor Trump.” I suppose it could be an acceptable resolution, although I still don't agree there's an issue with the term "special counsel" in this context, as far as BLP rules are concerned. This all happened before the RECENT SCOTUS opinion, and RS continues to examine the fallout from that debacle into 2024. Cheers. DN (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Without "Special Counsel" it could be like the Geraldo Rivera Al Capone dig or Dateline NBC. SPECIFICO talk 13:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Why do we have another thread about the same sentence as the one in #Russia in third paragraph of lead? First you want to change it, and when that didn't work, you want to remove it entirely. Hell no. That's pretty tendentious. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The previous section proposed to substantially expand the sentence in question. This section has made an alternate proposal to delete it or simply change “special counsel” to something else. I agree with your proposal in this section about changing “special counsel” to something else. There’s nothing tendentious about it. One proposal was rejected so I tried another. And I’ve said repeatedly that I agree with your proposal, which is not tendentious either. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Let's move on. Did you suggest something like this?

"The Mueller investigation established that Russia interfered in the election to favor Trump."

Would that work? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that would be okay. And for the record, I specifically asked User:Mandruss if I should start this section, and I followed his wise advice. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Valjean, an investigation by some guy named Mueller instead of the special counsel investigation known as the Mueller special counsel investigation? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose removal. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  Until there is consensus, I also oppose. DN (talk) 04:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant:, you have now twice replaced the link to Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election in the lead with the link to Foreign election interference, a general article that shouldn't be linked in the lead at all per MOS:OVERLINK. That's getting close to edit-warring, and what part of consensus 60 and the RfC don't you understand? Chronology: Your first edit, reverted here, my edit pointing out consensus 60, your reinstatement. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 22:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

You are not being accurate. What you call “your first edit” did not remove any wiki link. And what you call your “edit pointing out consensus 60” did not reinstate any wikilink. Also, your statement just now seems to be the first objection I have seen to the wikilink to foreign electoral intervention. The previous objections were based on WP:EGG, and I modified my edit to address that objection. Incidentally, we should not be pushing a POV here. It is not a good idea to deliberately hide from readers that foreign electoral intervention is a fairly common occurrence with a long history. The overlinking charge is frankly absurd. If you want to see what overlooking is, I’ll give you an example: it’s wiki linking to the Mueller investigation (which thoroughly described the Russian interference found in 2016) and then gratuitously wiki linking in the very same sentence to another Wikipedia article about Russian interference (which of course is available via the Mueller investigation article). Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Look at the edits I cited chronologically. Not sure what Specifico meant with that cryptic "egg" remark. What the edit did was revert the link to "Foreign election interference", and my correction of the wording pointing out the consensus was pretty clear, me thinks. Also, there's the other discussion you started above at Talk:Donald_Trump#Russia_in_third_paragraph_of_lead which says keep the status quo ante. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 22:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I did look at the edits you cited. And I just said above: “You are not being accurate. What you call ‘your first edit’ did not remove any wiki link. And what you call your ‘edit pointing out consensus 60’ did not reinstate any wikilink.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like violations of BRD, with multiple reverts.

To avoid further disruption here, I've decided to take concerns to your personal talk page. Unless these rules are no longer in effect, or for some reason don't apply to you, this entire discussion now seems like a complete mess as well as a waste of time. DN (talk) 01:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

You're right about one thing: your first edit didn't replace a link, it inserted a link where there was no link (also not abiding by consensus 60). Other than that, the chronology is as I stated above. Specifico challenged your edit by replacing the link with the link specified in consensus 60. I then amended the sentence wording, including the link, to comply with consensus 60. Then you reinstated the challenged Foreign election interference link and the wording I had challenged by reverting to the consensus wording. I've now reverted the sentence to comply with consensus 60 until a different consensus has formed, and neither this discussion nor Talk:Donald_Trump#Russia_in_third_paragraph_of_lead looks as though it's headed that way. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 September 2024

plz 100.7.65.233 (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

This will not be done, as you have not told us what you want done. Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

You need to tell us what kind of edit you want us to make. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest

@Darknipples: there is no discussion or consensus for such a large and undue addition - please gain consensus for it before restoring. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I did agree with your removal of "the upper part of Trump's right", as it is overly specific. I am not the one added it, and I was under the impression it was the status quo version. It appears Seananony may be the one that recently added it. I will undue the revert with my apologies. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I copied that from the assassination article as it had a solid consensus. It wasn't just one editor's formulation. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. If you feel it is still DUE please, by all means, elaborate for us. Cheers. DN (talk) 04:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the current version has enough detail for this article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Trump's promotion/appointment to president of his father's company

About the recent changes to the lead: according to biographer Gwenda Blair, all Trump got was a new job description while father Fred "kicked himself upstairs to be chairman of the board". There was no board, and Fred kept running the company as before. In current GOP parlance, Donald became PINO, president in name only. We should use "named" in the body and in the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 22:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m satisfied with how User:SPECIFICO edited the sentence in question to say that his father “made” him president. If you’re suggesting we add language to say how meaningless that was,?I’d suggest going to the article about the Trump Organization and hashing it out there first. It’s unclear how he could have “reoriented the company toward building and renovating skyscrapers, hotels, casinos, and golf courses” if his father was actually calling all the shots. The only source you cite is Blair, and then you immediately dispute Blair’s assertion that there was a Board, so apparently you are not relying on any particular source. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

No, I’m suggesting we should keep "named". By now Donald had a new job description. His father had kicked himself upstairs to be chairman of the board, and Donald was now president of the family business. One of his first acts was to bypass all the pedestrian corporate names used by his father and instead adopt one classy-sounding label, the Trump Organization, as a sort of umbrella identity. Blair’s writing is ironic. She doesn’t say there was a board, just that Fred gave himself the title. If he had named himself "Grand Poobah", it would have been just as noneffective. He owned and ran the company, whose business was managing his rental apartments in Brooklyn and Queens, built in the years before Donald started working for him. Fred kept on running the company and holding the purse strings until he developed dementia in the early 90s while Donald was off planning and building in Manhattan and Atlantic City. When the DOJ sued the Trumps for racial discrimination in 1973, Trump testified that he had nothing to do with renting apartments, "although in an application for a broker’s license filed at the same time he said that he was in charge of all rentals" (Blair, p. 252) - PINO. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Business & personal life - Roy Cohn

Roy Cohn needs to be mentioned in one of these sections because without him Donald trump wouldn’t be the same person he is today Roy taught him many strategies in business which he uses for his political career today John Bois (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there not any mention of their relationship in the article at all? Too much is likely UNDUE. DN (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Amazingly no mention at all John Bois (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Amazingly false. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

It should be mentioned in a small form nearly every action he took in office was based off Cohns methods and ideology John Bois (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Bias

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'm disappointed with the stance wiki has taken at addressing the bias of this article. When comparing political agendas, the language is not neutral. While I understand that truth is the intended goal and that all persons have something unlikable at some point about them, the presentation is off. Wiki, please address this by ensuring all presentations of information remains neutral, not just "random truth sharing" Surf985 (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Surf985, please read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:43, 18 September 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.

Trump is the oldest presidential nominee in U.S. history.

Peter Cooper (Age 84) is actually. The statement should be "Oldest Republican Presidential Nominee" 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:F817:63AE:2453:9C90 (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Sheesh. At some point, there are so many qualifiers as to make the "record" useless. I think we're there. Baseball stats are of interest only to baseball fan(atic)s. Let's remove it. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Oooh, maybe I could add that he's the only nominee who was saved by a miracle/divine intervention. "The doctor at the hospital said he never saw anything like this, he called it a miracle," said Trump. The doctor at the local hospital, which has a trauma center, told him he’s never seen anyone survive getting hit by an AR-15, Trump recalled. "By luck or by God, many people are saying it’s by God I’m still here," he said (courtesy of an interview he gave to the New York Post and the Washington Times en route to the RNC in Milwaukee). I started editing Attempted assassination of Donald Trump and was going to nix the Post but they're not reporting facts, just what Trump said, so I figure A 2024 RfC concluded that the New York Post is marginally reliable for entertainment coverage applies. The direct quotes in the WP article are also pretty entertaining. And the good doctor still hasn't seen anyone survive getting hit by an AR-15. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Lol. I have no idea what you just said; must be my ADD again. What are you advocating here, exactly? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Um - I was feeling slightly giddy after reading the WP page and the NY Post article? Trump's age — pish and pshaw (that must date back to the times of Peter Who?). I went bold and mentioned a few other superlatives for a major-party nominee (first felon, first to be found liable for sexual abuse, first whose business was convicted of criminal tax fraud), so I'll probably be back here shortly defending my edit. I expect the people who support "oldest" will support them as well . Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

You're correct; the source says "oldest major party nominee" so I'm amending it to say that. I think it's pretty noteworthy being the oldest person nominated by a major party for the highest office in the land, so I disagree with deletion. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Trump is older than anyone who has been the formal nominee of any party, major or minor. Before anyone mentions Biden, he was younger 4 years ago than Trump is now and he dropped out of contention this year before he became the official nominee. Ths is a saying that started going around afterBiden dropped out. Since Trump and his supporters made such a big deal of Biden's age, the Democrats have started turning those questions and objections back on the Republicans--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree this is like baseball stats. We don't need it. Given increasing longevity, the age of candidates is set to increase.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Not just Biden’s age. Also his dementia and gaffs like the “America can be defined in one word: a fuggiwuggi—uh—in the Himalayas with Xi JinPing”, and physical falls like the one from the bike and the one on the stairs to his Air Force One. Alexysun (talk) 08:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Glad you mention Biden falling off the bike. In his defense, the reason for the fall was that he had his feet engaged in the "foot retainer gizmo" aka "toe clips" that racing bikes use to prevent slippage and insure more foot pressure. It was a racing bike not a Schwinn Aero Cycle. His staff did him no favors by providing a "more than normal" bike to ride. Any one unfamiliar with the pedal attachment toe clips would have fallen. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 11:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Biden withdrew from the race a month before the editor posted the quote from (what else) a deceptively edited video that went viral on Tiktok, and riding a racing bike at any age and not breaking a hip when falling off it at his age — kudos. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

W IP user. Alexysun (talk) 08:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

"Oldest" and then "oldest major-party" nominee were recent additions. I don't see a consensus for the addition, so I've reverted it for now. A qualified superlative — not that impressive, and Trump's age is not getting much mention in RS, much less than Agenda 2025, racism, misogyny, his criminal record (the "overdetails"), the latest awful/dumb thing he said, etc. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

He's also the first major party nominee to have run against a woman major party nominee & will do so again. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Apparent 2nd Trump assassination attempt

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.

---

There isn't anything about Ryan Wesley Routh on the 2024 presidential campaign subsection. Is someone else working on that? Thomasthesecond (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

being discussed in Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2024. Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 20 September 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.

Honors and awards section

In other Wikipedia-related content, if there is a sub-item, the content is summarized in 3-5 lines, and a link to the main page is attached for the corresponding sub-item. However, this section does not have a summary, so the readability is poor, and if you like to see the content, you have to click on the link to check the other related content. Could you please add a summary? Or can I add it? If there is a summary, the readability will be improved, and it will be helpful to many other users. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I initially moved the link to the list into a sentence, then got to wondering where that heading and "main" came from in the first place. The article had an honors and awards section until 2017 when the article was much shorter. After a discussion on December 10 it was moved into the separate List of awards and honors received by Donald Trump which is currently linked in the Infobox "awards" parameter. The insertion of heading and "main" link into the article was overlooked at a time when there were numerous insertions and reverts because it was added in a large edit without being mentioned in the edit summary. It would be hard to summarize the content of the list in 3–5 lines, and even those 3–5 lines would necessitate citing quite a few sources. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the subsection's history. A brief 3-5 line summary with an example source would suffice, as this subsection complements the main article, which already includes a detailed list of references. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The comprehensive list of awards and honors received by the 45th President Donald Trump has been compiled collaboratively by many users over a period of seven years, starting in 2017, and since it has been separated into a separate article, it seems appropriate to keep the subheadings in the main text to honor the contributions of these contributors. However, the key details are summarized concisely in three lines. The comprehensive references are available in a separate article, so examples are provided. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Slatersteven, have you seen this discussion? Goodtime shouldn't have added the section before the conclusion of the discussion. "Noted, and I'm going to add what I think we need to add" does not constitute a consensus. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, My main contribution to editing was to recover what many users have worked on for over 7 years. And there should be a summary. The current one-line summary could be improved a bit. For now, I will just attach a few references as examples. - it is the proposed edit,

Donald Trump has been granted a number of awards and accolades, both domestic and international. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Not sure we need the links, after all they are supposed to be reading the main article, but fine have em. Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

List of awards and honors received by Donald Trump has 53 sources on honors awarded and honorary doctorates bestowed and rescinded, one of the reasons the long list was removed from this long article and moved into its own article in 2017. Why did you pick these sources? None of them pass the RS test, except possibly the Philadelphia Inquirer, and that one is the source for the Freedoms Foundation's President's Medal (not to be confused with the Presidential Medal of Freedom). It's one of the awards the Freedoms Foundation, according to their website, has awarded by the tens of thousands since 1949. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I seem to recall what was one of the issues, and why it got shifted out. So as to take the edit warring over what was and was not a notable award elsewhere. Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

So why are you now supporting putting it back in? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

As far as I understand, the consensus is that the main page will have a summary, and most of the content will be moved to a separate page. If necessary, there will be a separate discussion about what is notable and what is not.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

No, the consensus was to remove the section:

December 2017 discussion

Removing Entirety of Awards etc section Creating another section so my proposal is more visible; I don't see the point of that section. The collar doesn't seem that important as numerous people get it etc. All the important stuff is mentioned earlier in the body. Is the gaming hall of fame important? Nah. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC) I guess the collar isn't given to everyone sort of..but if it's that important (which it doesn't seem to be) it can be mentioned in foreign policy in a saudi arabia section..Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC) The honorary degrees are not really important..the section can be split off into List of honors and awards received by Donald Trump similar to List of honors and awards received by Barack Obama Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC) I too had thought of splitting the section, but I realized that Trump is an awkward position. He has a big article, but I am not sure if he has enough awards for a new article. If we do spin off then I suggest we consider to reintroduce the removed awards. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC) Barack Obama's list isn't that much longer. Definitely think of reintroducing the removed awards. Considering how much coverage is there, I think I can write about how is honorary degrees were given then removed etc. Should be enough. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)  Done It's a bit short, but it's undue here and there's enough coverage for a separate article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Since that discussion, numerous awards have been added to the list (presidents tend to receive many awards), and the page now has 57 cited sources. A summary saying has been granted a number of awards and accolades, both domestic and international with a few sources for a few random awards isn't any more informative than the status quo ante, the "awards" link in the infobox. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Comments? Honor and Awards section

The section was moved out into its own page on December 10, 2017, after a brief discussion involving two editors. It has since been accessible via the link "awards = Full list" in the infobox.

• On July 5, 2024, the heading and the "main" link were reinserted into the article, hidden in a large edit that claimed to "separate early life and education & personal life".
• I noticed the bare heading on August 19 and added a sentence without initially realizing that the section had previously been removed. I then self-reverted and removed the heading.
• Goodtiming8871 reinstated the heading and "main" the following day and added the record of achievement with three cites for one of the orders.

A number of edits (1, 2, 3, 4) followed. Result: the current Donald Trump#Honors and Awards section. Thoughts on keeping or returning to status quo ante without the section? As for "whatabout": Obama's page also gets along with the "full list" link in the infobox and without an honors and awards section. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 09:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

In the case of Barack Obama, under the main heading Legacy and recognition, there is a detailed summary with links to the subheading Awards and honors for 7 pages, and it also includes a photo of Obama receiving the award. In the case of Donald Trump, I suggest at least maintaining the current summary, or adding additional photos and key content to supplement it similarly to the case of Barack Obama. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I overlooked the "Honor and awards" subsection in Barack Obama. It's a prose list (basically a series of Wikilinks and dates with a few connecting words in between) of selected items from the List of awards and honors received by Barack Obama with a link to the full list that's also linked from the Infobox. It’s also without any citations, i.e., using another WP article as its source, something we're not supposed to do per WP:USERGENERATED. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see that apply in the revision that was reverted, it was sufficiently sourced on its own [4]. Is there other policy-based reason remaining not to include this notable small section? Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I support removing the section and sticking to just the infobox link. The article's length is already an issue, so we would need a very good reason to add an extra section to it. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

For the sake of fairness, in the case of Donald Trump, it would be appropriate to supplement the content a bit and make it similar in length to the following.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Awards and honors

Main article: List of awards and honors received by Barack Obama

Obama received the Norwegian Nobel Committee's Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, The Shoah Foundation Institute for Visual History and Education's Ambassador of Humanity Award in 2014, the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award in 2017, and the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights Ripple of Hope Award in 2018. He was named TIME Magazine's Time Person of the Year in 2008 and 2012. He also received two Grammy Awards for Best Spoken Word Album for Dreams from My Father (2006), and The Audacity of Hope (2008) as well as two Primetime Emmy Awards for Outstanding Narrator for Our Great National Parks (2022), and Working: What We Do All Day (2023). He also won two Children's and Family Emmy Awards.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 September 2024

According to Trump, the Mueller investigation said the Russia election interference did not exist. 47.155.241.235 (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

"Survived an assassination attempt" in the lead

Sounds as though he was on the margin of death but he "sustained a minor injury during an assassination attempt". I'm aware of the ifs — if he hadn't turned his head, if the bullet's trajectory had been an inch or two further to the left/right, etc. — but he had and it wasn't. Thoughts on clarifying the description in the lead? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I say let 'em read further if they want clarification (flogging a comatose horse, lblinks would help in that regard). ―Mandruss ☎ 13:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, It appears that you are looking to add something to the lead that suggests Trump wasn't in danger. Is that what this section is about? Bob K31416 (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, "assassination attempt" kind of suggests mortal danger. But there's a difference between, e.g., the injuries Reagan sustained during the attempt on his life and the injury Trump sustained. Also, we'll never know the exact nature of the injury unless they release the records of his treatment at Butler Memorial Hospital, so we'll never know. Ronny Jackson's version is worth as much as his medical evaluation of Trump in 2018 — "incredibly good genes ... if he had a healthier diet over the last 20 years, he might live to be 200 years old ". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

You could make an addition to the end of,

"In July 2024, he survived an assassination attempt at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania."

to change to,

"In July 2024, he survived an assassination attempt at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania where he was wounded in the ear by gunfire."

This addition is what is in the body of the article [5] and appears to satisfy what you say you are looking for. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

"Surviving an assassination attempt" doesn't necessitate injury, it only requires a lack of death. The same gunfire that shot Trump in the head critically injured 2, fatally shot one, and injured several others. I'm pretty sure that satisfies "mortal danger". Moreover, the entire world already knows what happened. It's not really something you can sugar coat when billions of people watched it happened live on TV. OnePercent (talk) 06:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

IMO we shouldn't mention it at all. Doesn't seem that it will have significant consequences. Events in this lede compete with a wide variety of events that might be included, and it's already long. Things can be very "historic" without being notable enough. One example is the Wagner Group rebellion, an astonishing and extremely historic event in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has correctly fallen out of the lede there because it had no effect on the course of the war and is outshown by other events. During the rebellion it seemed endlessly important, now it's a footnote. I think if we project a little bit into the future, try for some perspective, the assassination attempt is not a top-25 sentence for an article about our subject's life. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you fucking insane? Someone opened fire and hit a former president of the United States, and you're saying it doesn't seem like it will have significant consequences? MutedL (talk) 06:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

What!?!?!?? That's crazy. There have been only 7 presidential assassination attempts resulting in injury in the entire history of the United States, and this is number 7. It's the most historically significant occurrence in American politics that has happened in the past 50 years which single handedly restructured the US Secret Service, changed presidential protection forever, and united leaders worldwide in condemnation of political violence. Nothing like this has even been attempted since 1981, and there have been only 3 attempts resulting in injury in the last century. OnePercent (talk) 06:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The man got shot in the head on national television with the entire planet watching as he bled all over the place. The same gunfire fatally ended the life of one man, critically wounded two others, and injured several more. Had he not been shot at all, he would have still "survived an assassination attempt". The survival of an assassination attempt does not necessitate an injury, it only requires a lack of death. Every US politician and leaders around the world reached out to offer best wishes and condemned the assassination attempt. Any effort to glaze it over or lessen its significance is just going to look biased and further degrade this article since the entire world saw what happened in real-time. Not a good idea. OnePercent (talk) 06:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Off-topic about related body content. Ok to continue within the collapse. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: Does this revert of an edit I made in the body refer to this discussion about the wording in the lead? Unfortunately, your edit summary doesn't say, so I have to guess. About the wording in the body: Riposte's edit fails verification. None of the sources say that Trump was "wounded in the right ear"; CNN cites him as saying "later on social media he was shot in the ear". BTW, not even Jackson's memo, FWIW, makes that claim. Please, self-revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC) None of the sources say that Trump was "wounded in the right ear" misses the point, or my point at least. WP:ONUS: "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article." I removed "right" on that basis—not because it's not stated in sources, if that's the case—seeking to reduce the content in this bloated article to its absolute minimum. I don't feel it's significant enough for this article, but it's available in the linked article if readers really want to know which ear it was. That section omits tons of stuff that's found in sources. Otherwise, the main difference between the two versions is active voice vs passive. I lean weakly toward passive in this case, but meh. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC) When an AR15-style bullet hits a human body. "In the ear" — you wouldn't be helped down the stairs by your security detail, you'd be carried out on a stretcher. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC) And yet, "Trump raised his fist and mouthed 'fight' three times as he was ushered away by Secret Service agents." Clearly not carried out, let alone on a stretcher. I suspect readers can figure it out, but would you prefer "wounded on the ear"? "Wounded on the outer ear"? "Wounded on the auricle"? I call overthink. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC) "On" is an improvement. Apparently, grazing is for sheep. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC) Done.[6] ―Mandruss ☎ 19:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC) The problem is, the 'on the ear' formulation is grammatically incorrect. One is not wounded 'on the leg' but rather in the leg. We could say DT suffered a wound to his ear, but honestly I question why we are at such pains to minimise the injury by implicit language. We could just note it was minor if people are animated about it. I would also just note, Spacetime, that AR-15s regularly inflict piercing wounds where bullets do not encounter dissipating resistance (eg hands, ears, etc). The pitfalls of OR. Riposte97 (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC) The "wounded in" construct may be more prevalent in common usage, but it's far from universal; see for example this Reuters page that uses "wounded on the leg" in a photo caption. And it's false to say "wounded on" is grammatically incorrect; this is idiom, not grammar, the latter being a set of fairly clear-cut rules governing sentence construction. I question why we are at such pains to minimise the injury - You are implying a motive that I don't see. I have no problem with even minuscule improvement in clarity, particularly when the article size impact is zero. "In" can be interpreted as "inside". (This is a departure from my previous comments, and I'll accept the medal for being swayable.) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC) I find "wounded on" used in relation to legs, arms, torsos, heads, and (yes) ears. And not just Trump's ears. Such as this discussion of Flannery O'Connor's work or this account of a US Civil War soldier. Agree with Mandruss that "in the ear" would imply "inside". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC) AP photo gallery, images 1, 6, 9, 12, 13, 24. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC) Goodbye, gauze pad, hello, Band-Aid. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC) I've gotten worse injuries washing dishes or shaving. And I could show you some really disgusting ones fromwhen I cut my foot with a lawnmower.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC) Ouch. Maybe you should switch to shears if your foot hair needs trimming. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

FYI, In the article we currently have [7], "...Trump was wounded on the ear by gunfire...". Bob K31416 (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

As I noted above. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

So looking at my previous suggestion of 13:20, 21 July 2024 for the lead, just change "in the ear" to "on the ear". Bob K31416 (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, you're back to the lead again. It's almost like that's the topic of this thread. I'm still at I say let 'em read further if they want clarification. I'm sure you're aware that existence in the body is a poor argument for addition to the overlong lead. I get that that's not what you're saying; rather you're saying "If we add clarification to the lead, here's a good way to do it." ―Mandruss ☎ 21:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Postcript: the Band-Aid is gone, the ear's still there — all of it, it seems. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

all of it, it seems. Comb-over. Compare left and right! </forum> ―Mandruss ☎ 18:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

"Survived an assassination attempt" in the lead (2)

SPECIFICO, you removed the sentence in this edit. Did your editsum in this edit (I intended to remove this UNDUE AND RECENTISM bit, not to change paragraph break) refer to that removal? Then you removed the "insignificant RECENTISM detail covered on other WP pages" in this edit, whereupon I deleted the "assassination" subsection heading and moved the one remaining sentence into the 2024 campaign section. Another editor reverted the removal from the lead with the editsum "extremely notable and well sourced in the body". So now we have this current body text:

On July 13, 2024, Trump was wounded on the ear by gunfire at a campaign rally in Butler Township, Butler County, Pennsylvania.

And this current lead text:

In July 2024, he survived an assassination attempt at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania.

Doesn't quite add up to "the lead section is ... a summary of its most important contents". What do we do?

References

Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Greetings from planet Earth. I think the whole thing is RECENTISM and insignificant in Trump's life story. Also the revert of my removal on the grounds that it is well-source is contrary to ONUS for this recent content. The earshot should stay off this article page until such time as there's consensus for inclusion. Which currently is not evident. We're all glad his ear healed so well, but in terms of DUE encyclopedia content, this has already gone the way of his Georgia booking pose and other silly stuff. SPECIFICO talk 16:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

How many times have you been shot? I can guarantee you it is one of the most significant things one can go through in ones life. OnePercent (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

This seems like overcoverage for the lead. I don't think it merits any mention there. Gerald Ford had two assassination attempts against him while he was president; while he wasn't wounded in either the impact on his biography is similar and those don't rate mention in his lead. That's the best analogy I can think of as to whether this passes the 10YT to the extent that it's leadworthy. VQuakr (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree entirely with SPECIFICO and VQuakr - DFlhb (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The second (briefer) sentence would be a preference. Mentioning the event at all? optional. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I, also, agree entirely with SPECIFICO and VQuakr. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It should be in the lead and body. One sentence at the end of the lead is fine and im sure a couple sentences in the body is fine. Its well covered by RS and still talked about, should be no issue with the 10YT. PackMecEng (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by talked about? Who, where? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure, so RS talking about the attempt. In the past week PBS, NYT, CNN, and the Washington Post have all had articles on the topic. PackMecEng (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with PackMecEng. Even though the bullet barely touched his ear, yet enough to draw blood, it's still an assassination attempt, and that's a very notable event that should be mentioned in the lead. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that WP:RECENTISM applies to once sentence, but until the FBI releases its report we won't know what exactly happened. An AR-15 bullet whizzing past his ear, a bleeding skin wound that had stopped bleeding by the time the Secret Service walked Trump off he stage (not a drop of blood on his white shirt collar) and healed without so much as leaving a scar — "survived" just seems inflated compared with Reagan's punctured lung and internal bleeding. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Lets ignore the baseless conspiracy theories you are pushing here. It looks like your argument breaks down to you thinking this assassination attemped was not successful enough? That is not a convincing argument in the face of what RS say about it. PackMecEng (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Gee, thanks. WP:AGF. I'm objecting to the verb, not the mention of the assassination attempt. And, again, In the past week PBS, NYT, CNN, and the Washington Post have all had articles on the topic - urls, please, you know, for verification. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey if it quacks like a duck its probably a duck. You are spouting unsourced theories that go contrary to pretty much all reliable sources. Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me...

PBS, NYT, CNN, and Washington Post. Plus tons more recently because of the release of bodycam video. But also here is a hint for the future, if you search a topic go to the news tab in google, under tools you can select how recent of sources you want. PackMecEng (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, gee, thanks and WP:AGF. I will continue to believe my lying eyes, and I'm not proposing to add my opinion to the article. This article is about Trump, not the lapses in security, disagreements on which law enforcement forces were supposed to do what, etc., which is what the four sources you cited and this NYT article (archived) are about. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

It would be nice if you cited the urls of articles you mention. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Mention assassination in lead. Even though the bullet barely touched his ear, yet enough to draw blood, it's still an assassination attempt, and that's a very notable event that should be mentioned in the lead. To put this in context, you should watch this reel from Jason Pargin. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Agree, one doesn't have to even be injured to survive an assassination attempt. Plus this one happened with the entire planet watching. Kind of hard to sweep it under the rug. OnePercent (talk) 07:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• @PackMecEng: big yikes on [8]. It never should have been restored after being contested in the first place and the only reason it's "been there a few weeks now" is because other editors have the self-restraint not to edit war. Claiming it's the status quo is not ok. VQuakr (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  That's how status quo works, its been there a while and removing it, at this point, is the bold action. PackMecEng (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Lol, no. The only bold action here is you deceptively equating "a while" to "a few weeks". Reverted. Zaathras (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think you might be confused. PackMecEng (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  There is nothing confusing about "It's been there a few weeks now, restoring status quo" being a reality-adverse claim. Zaathras (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Various iterations of the shooting were added to the lead and reverted or amended, e.g., by me on July 16. And then I somehow inadvertently reverted myself, twice, along with other stuff I didn’t mean to do (confusion possibly due to temporary brain spasms and/or intervening other edits). The lead contained the unintended phrase until August 3 when Specifico challenged it, i.e., less than three weeks. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  If you two are going to edit war over stuff that has been there for weeks with continuing coverage does that mean RFC time? PackMecEng (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  The body text is sufficient and it links to our plentiful coverage on the shooting page. Trump has moved on and so should we. SPECIFICO talk 15:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  What edit war? Specifico fixed my error. My edit on July 16 proposed this wording: On July 13, 2024, he was injured in an assassination attempt. That was three days after the shooting and 10 days before the gauze pad/Band-Air came off. I've since reconsidered — let's keep it in the body until the FBI has finished its investigation. An AR-15 bullet travelling at around 3,000 feet per second, and there's no scar? >Maybe it hit a gnat on the way, and the gnat nicked the ear. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  4–6 weeks was suggested years ago by admin NeilN. We've used that a number of times and it's the closest thing we have to a local consensus. (I have advocated codifying that and other things like it, but editors prefer the conflicts such as seen here.) ―Mandruss ☎ 02:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• I hate to be dragged into politics, but this is absolutely ridiculous. The only semi-logical objection is WP:RECENTISM, but even then, this could be applied to virtually anything that happened to him this year. It is extremely notable and highly covered in sources across the political spectrum. There IS consensus, and the only response to that is "4 weeks isn't enough", yet his civil proceedings were added (albeit rightfully) immediately after his convictions... Wretchskull (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  This isn't politics, it's WP. yet his civil proceedings were added (albeit rightfully) immediately after his convictions - yep, WP:BRDBOLD, and nobody reverted. In this case, the edit was challenged, so kindly self-revert. Where do you see a consensus? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  I only saw it recently get removed and suddenly there is a problem which didn't exist for a month. Shouldn't new consensus be established if you want it removed? Also, none of the arguments I see here are actually about the content itself; people challenging there mere fact that it is mentioned. Wretchskull (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  All the arguments here are about the content and its NPOV-worthy sourcing. I would have objected immediately if the idea of putting this inconsequential bit of his life were not typical of the dozens of RECENTISM edits that get a few editors all excited, waste their time and others' valuable time, and then get dropped. Nobody's required to jump in on these proposals immediately or even promptly. Especially when the rationale for them is so readily rebuttable. The significance of this event, to date, relates to the Secret Service, the rally attendees, and other matters UNDUE for this bio page. If it later results in noteworthy significance for Trump, ipse, then it will need to go on this page. Don't forget, at convention time Trump's handlers were projecting the story that this bullet/shard was like tinkerbell's wand that transformed Mr. Trump into a kinder, gentler Trump 2.0. But no source I've seen still believes that has happened. SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Wretchskull: having this content in the lead was contested more or less immediately, after which discussion began on the talk page. It shouldn't have been restored without consensus per WP:BRD. There most certainly has never been consensus for its inclusion in the lead to date. VQuakr (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  @VQuakr: It's fine if people contest, it's just that the objections are illogical. @SPECIFICO: Again, absolutely ridiculous: "inconsequential bit of his life"?? "The significance of this event, to date, relates to the Secret Service, the rally attendees"?? Inconsequential? Relevant to virtually EVERYONE in the event EXCEPT the person actually getting shot!? Everything you said is a matter of opinion, because that is not reflected in reliable sources whatsoever. Please provide RS that clearly showcases your point that there is consensus the Secret Service, attendees, etc., are more relevant to the subject than Trump, or that it is "inconsequential", otherwise no objections hold any value. Wretchskull (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Innocent Americans were killed/injured, and Secret Service is in crisis. Trump breezes on. See our article on the incident. SPECIFICO talk 10:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  I changed my mind a couple of times about whether to add the incident to the lead and, if so, how, and also how to mention it in the body. If we had RS saying the attack had resulted in Trump being seriously injured, or that it had been politically motivated, or that it had a lasting effect on the presidential race, the situation would be different. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, time will tell. Classic RECENTISM situation. There's incipient commentary among some press and observers that this incident may have accelerated various cognitive dysfunctions. But as with all such speculation, we do not rush to publish it without established encyclopedic significance. SPECIFICO talk 15:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  It's fine if people contest, it's just that the objections are illogical. No, just because you disagree with something doesn't make it illogical. Others have mentioned that T. Roosevelt's lead doesn't mention his shooting, which was far more consequential that Trump's appears likely to be. I mentioned the Ford attempts above that also aren't in the lead of his article. The only reason we're even considering adding this to the lead right now is because Trump's shooting is more recent. That doesn't make it lead-worthy. If years from now historians note the shooting as an inflection point in Trump's biography, then we'll probably add it to the lead. As of now, that doesn't appear to be the case - it's just something that's being blended into the rest of the breaking news churn and of little lasting significance. Yes, this is a matter of opinion, an editorial judgement call, since the fact that the attempt occurred is obviously verifiable. VQuakr (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

As a comparison, note that we don't mention in Theodore Roosevelt's bio lead, that the former president survived an assassination attempt, while campaigning to return to the White House. GoodDay (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Yep, and consensus, even in the article, considers it an attempted assassination of the former president. No contrary sources; I rest my case. @Space4Time3Continuum2x: We can mention the assassination in the lede. These arbitrary rationales (whatever happened to him afterwards, etc.) are not what drives encyclopedias, because it's based on summation of reliable sources. @GoodDay: An article doing or not doing something has essentially no bearing on a discussion. The Roosevelt article isn't high-quality or that well-thought-through, and neither are there discussions about mentioning the attempted assassination in the lede. There is absolutely no reason not to include it to the Roosevelt article lede, and the exact same applies to this article. The lede section summarizes the most important points from the article body. The attempt on Trump had a well-sourced section which was unduly removed for being "unnecessary", which logically applies to literally any section. Are there any other objections people have or do we have to stretch this out for weeks and months..? Otherwise, we can reinstate the sentence. Wretchskull (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The former president only got his ear clipped. It has already healed. And most importantly, it has quickly fallen out of the news cycle. The way the media has treated this story, it is far closer in scale and coverage to the guy who chucked a grenade at President Bush than it is to the biography-defining attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. All in all, not lede-worthy. Zaathras (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Wretch, that is a strawman. I don't see any suggestion it was not an assassination attempt. It's just that it had negligible significance in Trump's long and storied biography. SPECIFICO talk 16:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

It appears you're suggesting expanding this dispute, into RFC territory. That's entirely up to you. But I suspect by mid-September, the assassination attempt on Trump will be even less noteworthy. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Wretchskull: yes, there are quite a few objections (obviously). I suggest waiting a couple of months on an RfC, as I think the decision either way on whether to include in the lead will be clearer by then - possibly to the extent that no RfC would be necessary. But either way, can I ask you to please turn down the temperature on your tone a couple of notches? VQuakr (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras: I don't necessarily think that's true though. I see a mix of reliable news sources which often cover it even when discussing unrelated topics on him—around the same frequency as his convictions. But that doesn't mean that the convictions should be removed from the lede, and same with the attempt on him. Again, arbitrary opinions like "it has already healed", even if true, is unencyclopedic. Wikipedia articles are summaries which synthesize reliable sources, not subjective opinions by editors. Also, "it is far closer in scale and coverage to the guy who chucked a grenade at President Bush" I don't think that's true either, given that there isn't even an independent article on it on Wikipedia, despite decades of possible sources.

Quite the opposite SPECIFICO, because of reliable sources. Also I'm pretty sure that it'll be a huge part of his campaign.

GoodDay and VQuakr, an expansion of the dispute and RfC is exactly what I want to avoid. I hate lengthy discussions over things that have little meaning to me or outside my breadth, especially anything remotely political. I expected this to be very quick because, I am sorry to say this, but I'm not convinced by the rationales given to exclude the assassination attempt from the lede. I'm genuinely trying to give the benefit of the doubt and understand your perspective, but the recentism and WP:DUE arguments are simply not reflected by reliable sources, even very recently. What are your thoughts?

Wretchskull (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

If you add it, I won't revert. Also, if somebody removes it, I won't revert. It's not something I'm overly concerned over. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The benefit of the doubt is just something you give per WP:AGF; you don't need to announce it. Whether you are convinced by the rationales given does not matter. I do disagree with GoodDay, however. It has been contested and should not be re-added to the lead without clear consensus. VQuakr (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@VQuakr: I understand that. I'm just frustrated because, like I said, the objections aren't supported by reliable sources and is therefore unwarranted in my opinion. What are your thoughts on that? Wretchskull (talk) 08:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

"The objections aren't supported by reliable sources" isn't a meaningful statement in this context. VQuakr (talk) 08:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Exclude The significance of any event in an article is solely determined by its degree of coverage in reliable sources. Extensive coverage when it happened is not sufficient for someone who has been in the news every day for eight years.

Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, George Wallace, Jerry Ford and Ronald Reagan were all shot at, but sources do not give these attempts the same significance.

TFD (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Exclude: "Survived an assassination attempt" sounds like he spent 3 months in a hospital but managed to struggle to a recovery. This assassination attempt has no obviously greater importance for his biography than those of other presidents and candidates and public figures whose biography articles do not mention the incidents in the lead section. Teddy Roosevelt was shot and proceeded to give a 90-minute speech about the great importance of the progressive cause with a bullet lodged in his chest, but the article about him doesn't mention it in the lead section. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Mischaracterizing Trump's rhetoric

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 [9], regarding mischaracterizing Trump's rhetoric, appeared briefly in the article [10] and was reverted [11]. Here's what it looked like.

CNN's Scott Jennings said that Trump's rhetoric was being mischaracterized by the Harris campaign. Examples were,[12]

    Trump joked that he would not be a dictator "except for day one", regarding closing the border and drilling for oil.
    Harris said, "Trump will be a dictator on day one."
 
    Trump said that there would be an economic 'bloodbath' for the automotive industry if Biden won.
    Harris said, "Donald Trump, the candidate, has said, in this election, there will be a bloodbath if the outcome of this election is not to his liking."

Although the examples of mischaracterizing Trump's rhetoric appear to be correct, unfortunately the information comes from Fox News, which Wikipedia considers to be generally unreliable for political items [13]. I guess I'll wait to see if the above examples of mischaracterizing Trump's rhetoric appear in a source that is acceptable to Wikipedia. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Cherry-picking season was May-July, Bob. How does the bulk of reliable sources out there characterize the "bloodbath" comment? Zaathras (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to show us with excerpts and their sources. This should be interesting. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Peruse WP:ONUS as your busy schedule permits. Zaathras (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

It would have been interesting to see how the reliable sources you had in mind characterized Trump's remarks. Anyhow, here's a couple of links for reference on the topic of characterizing the bloodbath remark. A video of Trump making the remarks: Donald Trump warns of "bloodbath" for auto industry if not elected. And here's what FactCheck.org had to say about the characterization of the bloodbath remark [14]. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I note your second source (the one that does not require wp:or seems to hedge its bets and say "But it can be taken either way, and that is deliberate". Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I was unable to find that quote in the FactCheck.org article. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Just as I was unable to find the one where it says this was mischaracterized, but there is this quote “That kind of rhetoric, it’s always on the edge, maybe doesn’t cross, maybe does, depending upon your perspective,” . Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Please note: that quote wasn't FactCheck.org's statement but part of a remark quoted in the article and made by Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy who was one of the few Republican senators who voted to convict Trump when he was impeached in 2021. As I mentioned below, FactCheck.org said that the auto-industry-blood-bath "explanation seems the most plausible, given the context of Trump’s comments." Bob K31416 (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Most plausible does not mean true, as I said they seem to hedge their bets. Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

It means probably true. Allow me to remind you of what was in the reverted edit where Harris said, "Donald Trump, the candidate, has said, in this election, there will be a bloodbath if the outcome of this election is not to his liking." Just FYI. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

SO does the source say he did not say there would be a bloodbath? Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Jennings is not one of CNN's journalists, he's a partisan political CNN contributor who voiced his opinion on a CNN panel. His remarks were quoted at length by Fox News, the New York Post, the Daily Mail, Newsmax, i.e., the usual suspects, while the remarks of the other panelists were not. And here's a secondary source on Jenning's remarks on the panel. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Here's WaPo's analysis of the bloodbath comment: Later in the rally, Trump warned it will be a “bloodbath for the country” if he is not elected. The comment came as he was promising to hike tariffs on foreign-made cars, and it was not clear exactly what Trump was referring to with his admonition. “Now we’re going to put a 100 percent tariff on every single car that comes across [the] line, and you’re not going to be able to sell those guys — if I get elected,” he said. “Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole. That’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country.” I don't recall which opinion writer commented recently that RS are still "sanewashing" Trump's utterances. Does "bloodbath for the whole" and "bloodbath for the country" translate to "bloodbath for domestic automakers" or plausible deniability? Anyway, our text mentions neither the bloodbath nor the "dictator for day one", so refuting that alleged mischaracterization by his opponent(s) is too much detail. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

From the FactCheck.org article,[15]

"'If you actually watch and listen to the section, he was talking about the auto industry and tariffs,' Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Trump’s campaign, told the Washington Post, adding that 'Biden’s policies will create an economic bloodbath for the auto industry and autoworkers.'

That explanation seems the most plausible, given the context of Trump’s comments."

So FactCheck.org finds the auto-industry-blood-bath interpretation as the most plausible. WaPo apparently took the remarks out of context. As Cheung suggested, watch and listen to the section in the video. Here's a link to it again, Donald Trump warns of "bloodbath" for auto industry if not elected. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

One must be careful with words. The pattern is unmistakable and "context" does not absolve it. WASHINGTON, March 22 (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has made a series of inflammatory and racist statements on the U.S. campaign trail since declaring his candidacy in November 2022. In some cases, he has used violent imagery to lambaste immigrants and opponents. He has warned that the United States is on the verge of collapse, and his rhetoric has raised concerns that he might flout democratic norms by using the power of the state to target perceived enemies if he is elected.[16] – Muboshgu (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Scott Jennings is WP:UNDUE anyway, why are we discussing including his opinion? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

That much detail, with examples, about Harris's attacks on Trump is UNDUE for this article. It could maybe fit in the 2024 campaign article, but even then I don't think giving this much space to one person's opinion is DUE. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:52, 25 September 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.

Bold-revert-discuss

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.

---

Some ignoramus reverted two of my recent edits to this page. Here are the diffs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1245914253 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1245915331

As to the first one, it is abundantly clear that the person who reverted my edits has never read the Trump v. Anderson opinion, because the corrections I made were 100% correct. The way the article described the Anderson ruling was incorrect and my edits were correct. And the second one corrects opinionated language.

I am interested in fellow users' opinions on this. I am planning on putting the edits back in 24 hours. Have a nice day. :-) Praiawart (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Praiawart: Here's a fellow user's opinion: Do not engage in name-calling on this page. I suggest you edit your comment as per the guidance at WP:REDACT. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose removal. If you repeat your challenged removal of reliably sourced and neutrally worded content without having reached obtained a consensus for the removal, you will be in violation of the contentious topics procedure in force on this page. Your editsum said that "It is inappropriate to include opinions in Wikipedia articles". The sources supporting the text are news articles, not opinions. You’re entitled to your opinion, but not to your own facts. Most of the material in question has been in the article since April or earlier (I didn’t check further back than April). I added He intensified his "heads I win; tails you cheated" rhetorical strategy, mentioning "rigged election" and "election interference" earlier and more frequently than in the 2016 and 2020 campaigns recently, based on this discussion, continued here, which supported adding the text. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 09:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Opposed Your argument for changes appears purely personal and without rationale. :-) DN (talk) 10:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Opposed No good reason oterh than PA's and a kind of I am right argument has been given, when one is (policy based) it might be worth looking at. Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 16 September 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.

$10 million bribe from Egypt?

Is this presented anywhere in the constellation of articles that relate to Trump? I see no mention of it on this page. Thanks. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

For reference:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2024/08/02/trump-campaign-egypt-investigation/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2024/09/03/trump-egypt-investigation-menendez/

72.14.126.22 (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

AFAIK, it's only mentioned on the page of Michael R. Sherwin, the prosecutor who terminated the investigation. CNN already reported this in 2020. $10 million packed up ready to travel in Egypt, Trump loaning his campaign $10 million of his own money around that time — circumstantial evidence or coincidence? Trump's reponse to the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee was the usual "fake news". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I added a citation with the newer Washington Post story over at the article about Sherman. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 05:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Birth certificate

I have removed a citation that appears to go directly to his birth certificate. User:Space4Time3Continuum2x has reverted it, citing the third sentence of WP:BLPPRIMARY. Here are all the sentences from that policy section, numbered for your convenience:

1. Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources.
2. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.
3. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.
4. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.

So... I'm pretty much thinking that the third sentence, which says "Do not use public records that include personal details" means that ref shouldn't be there at all. If by chance the fourth sentence was the intended one, that sentence indicates that it especially shouldn't be there by itself (if it's going to "to augment the secondary source", then there actually needs to be a secondary source there for it to augment). I think we should remove it as contrary to this policy and also unnecessary, but if we're going to keep it, then someone needs to find and add a secondary source that discusses the primary source.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the fourth sentence. A reliable secondary source, ABC News, published the birth certificate in April 2011, at the height of Birtherism. In March 2011, ABC published an article, that we did not cite, which has a link to a birth certificate issued by Jamaica Hospital — I think that was also cited in the section at one time but I'm not sure. Trump also had his lawyer send a different iteration of his birth certificate to Bill Maher in 2013, Maher gave it to Yahoo! News who wrote about it, and Politico reported on the Yahoo story. Maureen Dowd recounted the story in a NYT opinion piece in 2024. Then Trump sued Maher for not giving him $5 million for the birth certificate and dropped the lawsuit eight weeks later. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it is unnecessary.

But if you want to keep it, you need to add a WP:SECONDARY source (not a WP:PRIMARYNEWS). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a couple of secondary sources along with the primary one. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I replaced the primary source with the secondary ABC News source which also mentions when and where he was born. I don't think that the link to the birth certificate is necessary. The edit that inserted it doesn't say why. It's not as if there was a conspiracy theory about Trump's POB, just some jokes because of Trump's obsession with Obama's birthplace. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

BTW, WP:PRIMARYNEWS is an essay, not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is also "just" an essay. Wikipedia:Tendentious editing is also "just" an essay – and we cited it in a lot of block logs. What matters is that PRIMARYNEWS is factually true, not that we've made a WP:PROPOSAL to adopt it as a guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Essays provide a shorthand way to assert lengthy, complex, nuanced, PAG-free arguments. Except when they have somewhat widespread support, such as with BRD, TE, STICK, CIR, and so on, they carry no more "weight" in a discussion than if you wrote the argument inline. I've been around more than ten years and I haven't seen PRIMARYNEWS cited much in discussions. Obviously this system is flawed to the extent that we have differing experiences. Editing is a messy business. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The PRIMARYNEWS shortcut is linked on more than 550 pages,[17] and overall the {{Supplement}} is linked on more than 2300 pages.[18] The pageviews during the last 12 months were almost 11,000,[19] which means it is read more often than 95% of Wikipedia articles. WikiProject Essay's automated assessment system rates it as High-impact, which is a rating that 97.5% of essays never achieve, and is the same category that you'll find BRD and TE in, and higher than STICK. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

So PRIMARYNEWS has been linked 42 times per year since its inception. Compare to 2,247 for BRD and 253 for STICK. For judging support, I don't put much stock in anything besides incoming links; watching and reading don't necessarily imply support. Where are you seeing that PRIMARYNEWS is rated high-impact separate from the overall essay Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources? Support for the page cannot reasonably imply equal support for every section on it. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

WikiProjects rate whole pages, not individual sections.

As you say above, just because you haven't seen it linked very often doesn't mean that it isn't generally supported or useful. If you read it, you might even find something exceedingly uncommon: sources supporting the various statements it makes, e.g., to distinguish between the kinds of news sources that are primary and the kinds of sources that happen to be in newspapers but are secondary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

WikiProjects rate whole pages, not individual sections. Exactly; thank you.

As you say above [...] I said we might have different experiences. What I meant was that you might have seen significantly more links than I have; nothing more. My stats suggest that's probably not the case. I would suggest that you have an unusual interest in PRIMARYNEWS because you created it.

My comments to date have been more about general process principles; it seemed to me you were asserting weight for an essay that does not have widespread support. If it was merely "my position is fully articulated here", that's different and my apologies for wasting your time. I think editors could be more careful to make that distinction.

As for this specific case, I fail to see why a certified birth certificate is insufficient sourcing for a date or place of birth. Unless the author of a secondary source was present for the delivery, what verifiability can it possibly add? Besides the certified birth certificate, what basis would it use? Do we need a secondary source to exclude the possibility of a forged certified birth certificate? How can a certified birth certificate be good enough for very important legal purposes, but not good enough for Wikipedia? If you can make this make sense, go right ahead; I'm always open to learning via logical reasoning. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of whether they are insufficient, birth certificates are inappropriate sources per WP:BLPPRIMARY (except when accompanied by a WP:SECONDARY source). This has been discussed many times, including at these:

• Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 35#RfC: Restrction on public records – NB the discussion associated with the RFC (at "Restrction on public records") specifically mentions birth certificates
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive362#Irene Vaz a few weeks ago – see, e.g., @Woodroar saying that "We can't cite personal details about living persons to a "Registration of birth" (birth certificate). That's WP:BLP policy" and @JustAnotherCompanion saying "There are no loopholes, I'm afraid. WP:BLPPRIMARY is clear. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth." Birth certificates can only supplement WP:SECONDARY sources. They cannot be cited alone.
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive354#Assistance please – 2023 discussion in which Caeciliusinhorto says "As for the birth certificate, Rublamb explained in their edit summary why they removed it: because WP:BLPPRIMARY does not permit the use of public records in this way."
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive326#Birth certificate – 2021 discussion that begins with Jc3s5h saying that the "WP:BLP policy does not allow the use of public records to establish the birth or death dates of living persons".
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive205#Edwin Hunt (waterman) – in which GiantSnowman and a since-blocked editor agree that this is the rule, even if they don't like it.
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive186#Sheldon Richardson – in which General Ization says "See WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY. (Note that copies of birth certificates and other legal documents are also primary sources and cannot be used alone.)"
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive186#Sinitta – in which Ponyo asks for help with a since-blocked editor who keeps posting an image of a birth certificate in violation of BLPPRIMARY.

and even once by me:

• Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 36#Birth certificates

which might be relevant, in the sense that if we're still having this many conversations about it 11 years later, maybe it is past time to add the words "such as a birth certificate" into the middle of BLPPRIMARY.

Also, if anyone can find the Beyoncé birth certificate discussions, please share a link. There was a kerfuffle years ago over whether her birth certificate contains the accent, and therefore whether her One True™ Name (and therefore, in the opinion of a couple of editors, the Wikipedia article title) was accentless. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

If any of that provided answers to my questions, I assume you would have pointed it out. All I see is "It's this way because the rule says so." And I'm talking about Trump, not Beyonce. One size does not and should not fit all. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

BLPPRIMARY appears to be a one-size-fits-all rule. The reasons given over the years have included incorrect birth certificates (e.g., some other John Smith), privacy (e.g., a non-notable person's birth certificate), and forged birth certificates. Apparently the latter is a particular problem with actresses, who offer to send scanned birth certificates to prove that they're younger than the magazines have reported. I would not expect any of that to be a problem in this case, but we have a one-size-fits-all rule, and that rule says you can't cite the birth certificate (or any other public record) unless that public record is being used to "augment" a cited WP:SECONDARY source. If you don't like it, then WT:BLP is ready to hear your proposal ...but I'd suggest first reading those links so you know what the community thinks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like an argument I might make in a different discussion, so I guess I surrender. In hindsight PRIMARYNEWS (essay with dubious support) was an unhelpful distraction and my focus should've been on BLPPRIMARY (part of one of the most important policies). Thanks for the stimulating conversation. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

National Archives

In the same section, there's another BLPPRIMARY citation problem. One of the claims is cited only to a public record from the "National Archives...via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)", which is a violation of BLPPRIMARY. This is another instance of it doubtless being factually correct but still not being in compliance with the written policy. If someone doesn't want to find and add a WP:SECONDARY source, we will have to remove that primary source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The Washington Post and New York Times cites in the paragraph mention his Selective Service record in the National Archives, and WaPo discusses the ledger: Two months later, on Sept. 17, 1968, he reported for an armed forces physical examination and was medically disqualified, according to the ledger from his local Selective Service System draft board in Jamaica, N.Y., now in the custody of the National Archives. The ledger does not detail why Trump failed the exam — the Selective Service destroyed all medical records and individual files after the draft ended in 1973 and the military converted to an all-volunteer force. I added both cites to the sentence. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for dealing with that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

My edits on Trump's financial sources

Hi folks. User:Space4Time3Continuum2x removed my edits regarding Trump's financial sources on what I think are illegitimate grounds. I want to challenge this to keep them up. Here are my two revisions: [20] and [21]. Thanks. DivineReality (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Donor information to his a political campaign should be here: Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign#Major donors

I would not mess with the info box. Drocj (talk) 07:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

As said this is best in the article about his campaign. Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Huh - illegitimate grounds. What are your "legitimate grounds" for adding the content to Donald Trump#2016 presidential campaign and the infobox? As I said in the editsum reverting your bold edit to the 2016 campaign section, some of the info is about other time periods (inauguration, presidency, 2020 and 2024 campaigns) and some is not supported by the sources (the Adelsons donating more money than Clinton's entire campaign budget). Infobox: I think it's bloat. There is no definition for a "major donors" parameter. Doesn't mean we couldn't add it per "{{{blank1}}} {{{data1}}}", but we'd first have to identify the major donors, and what's the point? Mellon so far has donated more than the $100 million Miriam Adelson said she would put into her super PAC, the election is still seven weeks away, and "we're just getting started. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Editorial bias

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 am no fan of Donald Trump. Politically I am a never-Trumper, but the evident editorial bias in this article is precisely what gives credence to the fact that he is persecuted in the media among his supporters. There are essentially no positive comments in the article and many opinions are characterized as fact i.e. "Trump has been characterized as a racist..." 2601:680:C300:52E0:88B7:FCFA:295E:4286 (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

That Trump has been characterized as a racist is fact, not opinion. It's supported by reliable sources that show it to be fact. Contrast to "Trump is a racist", which would be opinion. Under Wikipedia policy, the only question is whether there has been enough such characterization to warrant mention in this article (WP:WEIGHT), and that's what Wikipedia editors do. The current consensus is "yes", which is why the mention exists in the article.

So what about the flip side of that coin? Has there been enough characterization that Trump is not a racist to warrant mention of that in this article? The current consensus is "no", which is why no such mention exists. Wikipedia policy explicitly precludes us from giving equal weight to both sides of the question when sources are decidedly on one side ("false balance").

Read the above-linked "response" page for more; otherwise there is no point in continuing this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

[first closure ended here]

Hi Mandruss, Since you've been adding to this thread, I thought you might like some company. Why isn't there enough to simply say Trump is a racist? Is it just a tsunami of political innuendo that is being reported in the article? Bob K31416 (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Since you've been adding to this thread - I don't think "The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it." was ever intended to mean I shouldn't flesh out my lone reply in multiple copy edits after my closure. That would require me to get it right the first time (why?), which I very often fail to do. Questions like yours aren't entirely unimportant, but in my opinion they belong in a separate thread. For one thing, the OP's scope was far larger than the racism thing (it's pretty clear they meant "e.g.", not "i.e."). For another, your questions appear to challenge the policy itself, which doesn't belong on this page at all. You know where to take them. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Personally I don't know where to take them - so perhaps you need to state that User:Mandruss. My understanding is that the Talk page IS the place to discuss content disputes. I scratch my head why one wouldn't say he's a racist, given the over half-century of incidents, litigation demonstrating he is a racist, and reporting that does identify him as a racist. Especially after his recent racist mistruth about Haitians - that he's trebled down on despite the person who started the meme apologized saying it wasn't true; no one says stuff like that and isn't racist. The lack of a clear identification of Donald Trump being a racist always seems to to be right-wing bias to me. Nfitz (talk) 03:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I stated that this page is not for challenging policy. If you really don't know, the place is WP:VPP.

As for the rest, see current consensus item 30. As noted there, two RfCs and another lengthy discussion have established the consensus to use attribution instead of wikivoice for this issue. Unless one can claim that the external situation has changed or has new arguments not already considered, there is no basis to revisit the issue.

For context, Bob K31416 is known to believe that this article is unfairly biased against Trump. Within that context, it's unlikely he was actually suggesting wikivoice; it was rhetorical. He is of course free to correct me. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Good grief. And we can't say he's a liar - this is pretty easy to document. WTF is wrong with people here? Since when does something that's well reported get white washed? And since when did we not hash out content disputes on the target page? No wonder things are going to the dogs with the rise of extremism and fascism starting to bias content here! Nfitz (talk) 07:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Mandruss, That was simply a question I had. I wasn't promoting calling him a racist or advocating against it. Here's the question again, "Why isn't there enough to simply say Trump is a racist?" Would you care to answer it? Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Simple answer: point out the majority of RS saying Trump is racist instead of "made racist remarks" or "made remarks considered to be racist". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:56, 17 September 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.

Biased in a liberal point of view

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.

---

While I believe their should be multiple points of view left for interpretation in this article, since it is a controversial subject. please add conservative points of view alongside liberal points of view, for example. Some people believe that trumps lawsuits are fabricated, and others don't. Then proceed to add viewpoints for both sides. Nickdugrub (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

We won't kowtow to what "some people believe" when it's verifiably false. See Talk:Donald Trump/FAQ. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:FALSEBALANCE. Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu and Slatersteven: If you choose to reply to these things, please observe consensus 61. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:54, 2 October 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.

American English tag

I added the American English tag to the talk page since it wasn't there before and the article follows American English spelling conventions. Was this a good addition? Unnecessary but should stay? Go? I'm trying to get a feel here for when articles should be tagged with language conventions, and I figured I'd ask on the talk page of a currently relevant person without such a tag. Sirocco745 (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I reverted.[22] ―Mandruss ☎ 00:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Alrighty, noted. Could you please tell me why? A short sentence or two will do, I simply want to get a better idea of when it's appropriate to add language convention tags to a page. This line of thought originated from a few articles on Indian politicians Wikipedia suggested to me that I've been copyediting and had the Indian English tag added there prior. You can check my edit history to confirm that if you want. Sirocco745 (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

No particular "why" except that you failed to provide any better rationale than "no harm done". The onus is on you, not me or anyone else. This applies especially to additions: one needs to justify every new bit of clutter, even the small bits.

All that said, I don't see why the article talk page couldn't inherit the language from the article. Do you know of any cases where the article uses one language and the talk page uses a different one? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

No, not as far as I can really see. Thanks for telling me that, I'm still new to editing Wikipedia. I'll definitely keep in mind that bit about "no harm done" edits, every bit of extra information helps. Sirocco745 (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

It's perhaps worth noting that you handled this far better than many editors with a decade of experience. They should take an example from you. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not worth getting all up in a big fuss over something as simple as this. Asking "why?" almost always gets you a coherent answer, and once you know the other person's reasoning, then you can build on top of that and work towards a solution if necessary. In this case, I asked "why was it removed?" and you effectively responded "it was basically unnecessary clutter." Question, answer, acceptance! It's that easy :D Sirocco745 (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

In my view, Sirocco745, adding an American English WP:ENGVAR tag is only productive when the edit history shows an ongoing pattern of inappropriately switching to, for example, British English. Otherwise, leave well enough alone. Cullen328 (talk) 04:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks! That makes a lot of sense, I'll keep that in mind. It's a bit hard to keep track of all the different policies and WPs and whatnots sometimes, maybe I should spend a decent bit of time reading up on them. Sirocco745 (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)+

Sirocco745, I don't think MOS:TIES and MOS:CONSISTENT apply to talk pages, only to the articles, i.e., main space. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Man, I really gotta read up on all these policies XD Sirocco745 (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I should clear up my apparent brain fart. I was thinking the template in question was defining a language for the talk page, independently from the article's language. Sorry if anyone was misled. The template simply makes the article's language visible to readers and editors, to the extent they read banners at the tops of ATPs. You definitely wouldn't want such a tag at the top of the article page.

So the use of the tag begins to make a little more sense to me. But I feel cost exceeds benefit. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess the American English tag is a tad bit redundant on an article about an American, let alone one as, uhh.. prominent as Trump. Sirocco745 (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

That too. Until we have a {{Trumpian English}} template, at least. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that template would need updating after every speech he makes. Sirocco745 (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Been around for 10 years and never saw a pre-stricken comment until now. Interesting technique! ―Mandruss ☎ 03:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say this! ―Mandruss ☎ 03:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a personal favourite of mine XD Sirocco745 (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Editing would be much easier at a {{Trumpian English}} article. We would be free of rules about grammatical construction, etc. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Support for Trump's missile strike in Syria

In the foreign policy section on Syria there was no mention of the support for Trump's missile strike on Syria so I included it [23] and it was reverted by User:Zaathras [24]. Bob K31416 (talk) 08:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

And? Zaathras (talk) 12:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I would have reverted it, too, for two reasons. The source for the added material was an opinion, and the material is "whataboutism" — if it's relevant for the biographies of Clinton, Donilon, Panetta, and Petraeus, then that's where it should be added with RS, not opinions. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Here's the excerpt from the source [25] I used, "...virtually every major Obama foreign policy official — Hillary Clinton, Thomas Donilon, Leon Panetta, David Petraeus — has supported the Trump administration’s action, as did U.S. allies in the region and beyond." The support for the missile strikes is not an opinion but a widely accepted fact. For example, the missile strikes are currently mentioned at the beginning of the section Syria along with two sources, all of which were in the article before I made my edit. The two sources mention that the missile strikes had wide support by the US and its allies. There is no mention of this in the article. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

News but not encyclopdic. Belongs in the Trump Bombing sub'article. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

That's a self contradictory statement: "not encyclopedic" and belongs in another Wikipedia (encyclopedia) article. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Point Bob K31416. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

No, it's a matter of WEIGHT. SPECIFICO talk 09:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Aren't we all. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Thus far all the OP has offered for justification is that it "is sourced," but no explanation of the relevance to a biographical article. Zaathras (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The section Syria contains various comments on Trump's other actions: "Mattis resigned in protest", "U.S. House of Representatives ... condemned Trump's withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria ...". I simply suggest adding the comments that Trump's missile strikes were widely supported by the US and allies. It is different from the other comments because it is a positive for Trump instead of a negative, but that shouldn't matter, or am I missing something? All these comments are biographical because they show how Trump's actions were received. There doesn't seem to be a good reason to leave out the positive comments and only include the negative ones. Bob K31416 (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Update titles and accomplishments to be holistic

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.

---

Any mention of his title of former president, should include the impeachments and felony convictions related to being the former president. Presently, he is the only U.S. President ever to have achieved these additional qualifiers to that title. For example the title of, "...former president..." should be more accurately listed as, "...twice impeached former president and convicted felon, Donald Trump ..." SalaciousWhite (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

No we only have to say it once, but then we also have to really, only call him President once. Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The frequency wasn't my concern. Rather that it is misleading to only mention he is a former president and not note these very unique qualifiers of the office he held. SalaciousWhite (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

We do

"Trump is the only U.S. president to have been impeached twice, in 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress after he pressured Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, and in 2021 for incitement of insurrection. The Senate acquitted him in both cases. Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden but refused to concede. He falsely claimed widespread electoral fraud and attempted to overturn the results. On January 6, 2021, he urged his supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol, which many of them attacked. Trump supported and took credit for the repeal of Roe v. Wade. Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history.

Since leaving office, Trump has continued to dominate the Republican Party and is their nominee again in the 2024 presidential election. In May 2024, a jury in New York found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment to Stormy Daniels in an attempt to influence the 2016 election, making him the first former U.S. president to be convicted of a crime. He has been indicted in three other jurisdictions on 54 other felony counts related to his mishandling of classified documents and for efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. In civil proceedings, Trump was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation in 2023, defamation in 2024, and financial fraud in 2024."

And that is just the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

As I stated, it is a unique qualifier to his status of former president, and should be reflected accurately rather than just the mention of events and his actions which led to the impeachments and felony convictions. SalaciousWhite (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

We will not be referring to him as "twice impeached former president and convicted felon, Donald Trump". We instead will detail that he was impeached twice and has been convicted of 34 felonies (with more pending), as we already do. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Honorifics recognize the work and/or contribution by a person. In this case, as with many modern honorifics, the suggested additions are because he is the first ever to have earned them.

While 'dishonorifcs' may be uncommon in the U.S. they are certainly not unheard of. The English language is quite absorbent of other cultural words and phrasing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorific#Thailand SalaciousWhite (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

We tend to refer to people in the manner that reliable sources do (see WP:NPOV). In this case, "former president" is by far the most common. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, this just isn't going to happen. We don't even call him former president Donald Trump as far as I'm aware, which is far more notable than his felony convictions or impeachments. We merely note that he was once a POTUS, that he has been convicted of felonies, and that he has been impeached twice. Cessaune [talk] 19:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Now I'm pretty sure this thread is just trolling. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Any mention of his title of former president — the article doesn't call Trump "the former president" or "former president Trump" even once. Except for using his full name in the first sentence, he's always "Trump" per MOS:SURNAME. The only mention of "former president" is in these three sentences: "seven Republicans joined every Democrat in voting to convict, the most bipartisan support in any Senate impeachment trial of a president or former president", "but felt the Senate did not have jurisdiction over former presidents", and "Unlike other former presidents, Trump continued ..." Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:31, 3 October 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.