Talk:Donald Trump

Current consensus

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
[[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .

01. Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image. (Dec 2016, Jan 2017, Oct 2017, March 2020) (temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait, enforced when an official public-domain portrait was released on 31 October 2017)

02. Show birthplace as "Queens, New York City, U.S." in the infobox. (Nov 2016, Oct 2018, Feb 2021) "New York City" de-linked. (September 2020)

03. Omit reference to county-level election statistics. (Dec 2016)

04. Superseded by #15

Lead phrasing of Trump "gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College" and "receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide", without quoting numbers. (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

05. Use Trump's annual net worth evaluation and matching ranking, from the Forbes list of billionaires, not from monthly or "live" estimates. (Oct 2016) In the lead section, just write: Forbes estimates his net worth to be [$x.x] billion. (July 2018, July 2018) Removed from the lead per #47.

06. Do not include allegations of sexual misconduct in the lead section. (June 2016, Feb 2018)

07. Superseded by #35

Include "Many of his public statements were controversial or false." in the lead. (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

08. Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (Dec 2016)

09. Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2017) Include a link to an archive of Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2021)

10. Canceled

Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016) Canceled: Barron's BLP has existed since June 2019. (June 2024)

11. Superseded by #17

The lead sentence is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States." (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (RM Jan 2017, RM June 2019)

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 14 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". (Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (Nov 2019)

14. Omit mention of Trump's alleged bathmophobia/fear of slopes. (Feb 2017)

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

Supersedes #4. There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text (Diff 8 Jan 2017) has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense (Diff 11 Feb 2018). No new changes should be applied without debate. (RfC Feb 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017, Feb 2017) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

17. Superseded by #50

Supersedes #11. The lead paragraph is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (April 2017, RfC April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, July 2017, Dec 2018) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per Dec 2018 and MOS:JOBTITLES RfC Oct 2017. Wikilinks modified per April 2020. Wikilink modified again per July 2020. "45th" de-linked. (Jan 2021)

18. Superseded by #63

The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "Wharton School (BS Econ.)", does not mention Fordham University. (April 2017, April 2017, Aug 2020, Dec 2020)

19. Obsolete

Following deletion of Trump's official White House portrait for copyright reasons on 2 June 2017, infobox image was replaced by File:Donald Trump Pentagon 2017.jpg. (June 2017 for replacement, June 2017, declined REFUND on 11 June 2017) (replaced by White House official public-domain portrait according to #1 since 31 Oct 2017)

20. Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. (June 2017, May 2018) (Note: In February 2021, when he was no longer president, the verb tense was changed from "have sparked" to "sparked", without objection.)

21. Superseded by #39

Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him. (July 2017, Aug 2017) (superseded by #36 on 18 June 2019, then by #39 since 20 Aug 2019)

22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (RfC Aug 2017, upheld by RfC July 2024)

23. Superseded by #52

The lead includes the following sentence: Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. (Aug 2017, Nov 2017, Dec 2017, Jan 2018, Jan 2018) Wording updated (July 2018) and again (Sep 2018).

24. Superseded by #30

Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (Feb 2018) (superseded by #30 since 16 Aug 2018)

25. In citations, do not code the archive-related parameters for sources that are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)

26. Do not include opinions by Michael Hayden and Michael Morell that Trump is a "useful fool […] manipulated by Moscow" or an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation". (RfC April 2018)

27. State that Trump falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton started the Barack Obama birther rumors. (April 2018, June 2018)

28. Include, in the Wealth section, a sentence on Jonathan Greenberg's allegation that Trump deceived him in order to get on the Forbes 400 list. (June 2018, June 2018)

29. Include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article. (June 2018)

30. Supersedes #24. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." (RfC Sep 2018, Oct 2018, RfC May 2019)

31. Do not mention Trump's office space donation to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/Push Coalition in 1999. (Nov 2018)

32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. (RfC July 2018, Nov 2018)

33. Do not mention "birtherism" in the lead section. (RfC Nov 2018)

34. Refer to Ivana Zelníčková as a Czech model, with a link to Czechs (people), not Czechoslovakia (country). (Jan 2019)

35. Superseded by #49

Supersedes #7. Include in the lead: Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. (RfC Feb 2019)

36. Superseded by #39

Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him. (June 2019) (paragraph removed per RfC Aug 2019 yielding consensus #39)

37. Resolved: Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (June 2019)

38. Do not state in the lead that Trump is the wealthiest U.S. president ever. (RfC June 2019)

39. Supersedes #21 and #36. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)

40. Include, when discussing Trump's exercise or the lack thereof: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise. (RfC Aug 2019)

41. Omit book authorship (or lack thereof) from the lead section. (RfC Nov 2019)

42. House and Senate outcomes of the impeachment process are separated by a full stop. For example: He was impeached by the House on December 18, 2019, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted of both charges by the Senate on February 5, 2020. (Feb 2020)

43. The rules for edits to the lead are no different from those for edits below the lead. For edits that do not conflict with existing consensus: Prior consensus is NOT required. BOLD edits are allowed, subject to normal BRD process. The mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it. (March 2020)

44. The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results. (RfC May 2020)

45. Superseded by #48

There is no consensus to mention the COVID-19 pandemic in the lead section. (RfC May 2020, July 2020) (Superseded by RfC Aug 2020)

46. Use the caption "Official portrait, 2017" for the infobox image. (Aug 2020, Jan 2021)

47. Do not mention Trump's net worth or Forbes ranking (or equivalents from other publications) in the lead, nor in the infobox. (Sep 2020)

48. Supersedes #45. Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic should be mentioned in the lead section. There is no consensus on specific wording, but the status quo is Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. (Oct 2020, RfC Aug 2020)

49. Supersedes #35. Include in lead: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. (Dec 2020)

50. Supersedes #17. The lead sentence is: 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. (March 2021), amended (July 2021), inclusion of politician (RfC September 2021)

51. Include in the lead that many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as misogynistic. (Aug 2021 and Sep 2021)

52. Supersedes #23. The lead should contain a summary of Trump's actions on immigration, including the Muslim travel ban (cf. item 23), the wall, and the family separation policy. (September 2021)

53. The lead should mention that Trump promotes conspiracy theories. (RfC October 2021)

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (RfC October 2021)

55. Regarding Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, do not wiki-link "Trump's comments" in this manner. (RfC December 2021)

56. Retain the content that Trump never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan but add context. Current wording can be altered or contextualized; no consensus was achieved on alternate wordings. (RfC November 2021) Trump's expressions of doubt regarding the Russian Bounties Program should be included in some capacity, though there there is no consensus on a specific way to characterize these expressed doubts. (RfC March 2022)

57. Do not mention in the lead Gallup polling that states Trump's the only president to never reach 50% approval rating. (RfC January 2022)

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

59. Do not label or categorize Trump as a far-right politician. (RfC August 2022)

60. Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023.

61. When a thread is started with a general assertion that the article is biased for or against Trump (i.e., without a specific, policy-based suggestion for a change to the article), it is to be handled as follows:

1. Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias.
2. Close the thread using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, referring to this consensus item.
3. Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
4. Manually archive the thread.

This does not apply to posts that are clearly in bad faith, which are to be removed on sight. (May 2023)

62. The article's description of the five people who died during and subsequent to the January 6 Capitol attack should avoid a) mentioning the causes of death and b) an explicit mention of the Capitol Police Officer who died. (RfC July 2023)

63. Supersedes #18. The alma mater field of the infobox reads: "University of Pennsylvania (BS)". (September 2023)

64. Omit the {{Very long}} tag. (January 2024)

65. Mention the Abraham Accords in the article; no consensus was achieved on specific wordings. (RfC February 2024)

66. Omit {{infobox criminal}}. (RfC June 2024)

67. The "Health habits" section includes: "Trump says he has never drunk alcohol, smoked cigarettes, or used drugs. He sleeps about four or five hours a night." (February 2021)

"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 [1] 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.[2] ―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 [3], "...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 [4]. 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)

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)

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 [5]. 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.

Suggestion for "Rigged election" etc. graphic

To sow election doubt, Trump escalated use of "rigged election" and "election interference" statements in advance of the 2024 election compared to the previous two elections—the statements described as part of a "heads I win; tails you cheated" rhetorical strategy. (source: Yourish, Karen; Smart, Charlie (May 24, 2024). "Trump's Pattern of Sowing Election Doubt Intensifies in 2024". The New York Times. Archived from the original on May 24, 2024.

My 27 August posting of this graphic in the section /* 2024 presidential campaign */ was reversed, with the edit comment "It's a biography, not a political battleground. Recentism. Already in the campaign article."

• Include graphic: "Rigged election" assertions are integral to Trump himself, not merely that section—which in any event is inherently political in nature. Since the graphic encompasses three elections, it doesn't violate WP:RECENTISM. And being in another article doesn't disqualify it from inclusion here, where it would replace a non-educational pic of Trump at a rally. —RCraig09 (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't like the title of the graph. It's WP:CRYSTALBALL and making an assumption about Trump's reasoning — not unreasonably, considering his past behavior, but assuming nevertheless. The NY Times source talks about Trump's falsehoods about election interference and rigged elections; a title such as "Trump election interference rhetoric" would be NPOV and strictly factual. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. "Rhetoric" seems more accurate. DN (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per my edit summary. Not much to add, but how important would this be in this article the day after the election? If the honest answer is not "equally important", it's a misuse of this article.
  Actually the better test is how important would this be in this article if he lost the election? Then the GOP would give up on him and he would begin to fade into history, and this article would cease to be a political battleground, which it never should have been in the first place. It's a biography, not "Here's what you need to know about Donald Trump before you vote". ―Mandruss ☎ 17:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  Mandruss, I question your premise. He did lose the election in 2020 and not only did the R's not give up on him. They acted on his rigged rants and then decided to nominate him again this year. But pink pictures are poor. Go for the team theme, red and blue. SPECIFICO talk 22:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  Even the R's have their limits. One lost election is one thing, two lost elections are another thing entirely. But the argument doesn't require that premise. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

"...in this article" is not the issue. Trump's trademark assertions are especially relevant to this section /* 2024 presidential campaign */ (as well as to the section /* 2020 presidential campaign */ section which resulted in the historic January 6 insurrection). The graphic shows an intensifying pattern characterizing his mentality. Re what happens November 6, 2024: obviously, Trump (and Trumpies) won't just roll over if he loses; it shows how he has changed U.S. politics. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it belongs more appropriately in another section, if the "political" nature of those two section titles is what's bothering you. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

That wouldn't change anything for me. But worry not; my views about the proper use of BLPs for politicians comprise a tiny minority, very possibly a minority of one. I don't know why I waste people's time, but occasionally I can't help myself. You'll get what you want, it will just take a little longer than you hoped. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Non-educational pic of Trump at a rally — the raised fist, the Secret Service detail surrounding him, and the MAGA mob on the stage may not be educational, but it illustrates the campaign rallies pretty well. The 2024 campaign section currently has this paragraph: During the campaign, Trump made increasingly violent and authoritarian statements.[697][698][699][700] He also said that he would weaponize the FBI and the Justice Department against his political opponents,[701][702] and used harsher, more dehumanizing anti-immigrant rhetoric than during his presidency.[703][704][705][706] We could add another sentence: He mentioned "rigged election" and "election interference" earlier and more frequently than in the 2016 and 2020 campaigns, using a "heads I win; tails you cheated" rhetorical strategy. and add the graph without caption to illustrate it. There's room for the image and the graph in the section. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Include - adds a visual perspective on his lies John Bois (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose What is this, the Dr. J Evans Prichard Scale of Understanding Political Rhetoric? The reader doesn't need a pretty graph to see how the subject's lying has increased over time. Just say it. Zaathras (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

More than a-picture-is-worth-a-thousand-words, this chart quantifies the intensification of the Big lie in U.S. politics. It's hugely important, and shouldn't be a single sentence buried in the narrative of an extremely long article. —RCraig09 (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

a-picture-is-worth-a-thousand-words was a saying aimed at paintings and other visual media. Not graphs and pie charts. Zaathras (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you also feel that way about the chart in the False or misleading statements section, or the map in the False claims of voting fraud, attempt to prevent presidential transition subsection?

Would you mind going into a little bit more detail as to relevance or irrelevance of the proposed graph in efforts to improve the article?

Cheers. DN (talk) 04:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not see why this graph should be added. The relevant information can be described using text, we don't need an image. I also agree with Mandruss that this graph would become much less important after the election, which means it is not important enough for this biography of Trump. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The "relevant information" is quantitative over time, and thus can't be adequately described in text. Can you User:QuicoleJR not see how Trump's Big lie hasn't changed U.S. politics profoundly in the direction of conspiracy theory acceptance, regardless of the outcome of one election? —RCraig09 (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

It has made an impact on politics, but you haven't convinced me as to why this specific graph is relevant to Trump. It makes more sense to go in the 2024 campaign article IMO. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR: Generally, a subject's impact on the world is definitely worth inclusion in his biography, especially when it's a huge impact on a powerful nation's politics. This "specific graphic is relevant to Trump" because it quantifies, over time, how Trump is the leader of the Big lie profoundly changing a powerful nation's lurch toward conspiracy-laden and Post-truth politics. Trump inspired Trumpism, which, given the mentality of adherents, will survive Trump himself. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - What will be the point of this graphic, if Trump wins? Let's avoid such additions to this BLP. GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  This discussion and this article do not depend on future events or our personal predictions. SPECIFICO talk 03:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  We'll have to wait & see, if there's a consensus for inclusion. GoodDay (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  Obviously the flip side of that coin is, what if he loses? Given the events of Jan 6, I think this has a chance of being DUE. DN (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  So we'll wait until after the election. GoodDay (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  If this doesn't currently violate BLP rules and meets criteria for being DUE, what would be the purpose of that? DN (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't believe it's DUE. GoodDay (talk) 04:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  That much is obvious, but the reasons you have given so far are not as clear. Please elaborate. DN (talk) 04:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  The election hasn't occurred yet, so we can't 100% be certain if there'll be a repeat of Jan 6, 2021. Now, let's allow others to give their input. GoodDay (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  Understood, but unless I'm misinterpreting your argument, IMO it seems misplaced to assume that adding a chart of Trump's history of laying "groundwork for election denial" since 2020 should be construed as a "prediction". That would be a WP:CRYSTAL issue. Cheers. DN (talk) 04:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  We disagree on this matter. Leave it at that. GoodDay (talk) 04:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  GD, each repetition shows that you are not providing any intelligible, reasoned argument for omitting this. Why not omit that he's running for president, since he hasn't won yet? Why not omit that he's married , because he might get divorced again? Why not omit his criminal convictions since the may be reversed on appeal? There is currently an organized, multi-state effort to undermine the 2024 vote. It's uniquely personal to Trump and he is personally, publicly, and persistently projecting it to his followers. That is a widely documented, unprecedented fact that does not depend on future events. SPECIFICO talk 11:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  + Yep, I'm seeing unjustified and irrelevant "crystal balling" re the 2024 election in isolation. Critically, the chart epitomizes and quantifies the flourishing Conspiracy/Post-truthing/Gaslighting that is embedded in the DNA of Trump(+ism) and his(its) Big lie, and that has already seismically restructured US politics. Few phenomena are more notable in their WP:DUE weight. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment This seems to be the same graphic used in the rhetoric section at Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign DN (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

'Tis. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Well if it's good enough for them it's harder to understand the objections here... DN (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Include I would've preferred not to dissent in order to increase the chance for closure to this, but the well meaning arguments that this graphic is undue feel loosely conflated with policy issues that appear to lack resilience under scrutiny. Trump seems to have promoted election denialism long before he entered politics, possibly as early as 2012 according to RS. Regardless if Trump wins, accepts a loss, or denies losing in the 2024 election, this graphic easily and clearly depicts the historic growing significance of this issue in Trump's appeal to the American public over the last four years . No matter the outcome of this election, readers will expect coverage of Trump's denialist rhetoric, regardless of whether they support it or not. It has achieved prevalence in reliable sources over the last four years that arguably warrants this kind of remedy. One that appeals as a small contemporary supplement to the occasionally tiresome minutia over a vast ocean of text. Cheers. DN (talk) 08:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Suggested version including text and graph

2024 presidential campaign section

Main article: Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign Trump rally in New Hampshire, January 2024 On November 15, 2022, Trump announced his candidacy for the 2024 presidential election and set up a fundraising account. In March 2023, the campaign began diverting 10 percent of the donations to Trump's leadership PAC. Trump's campaign had paid $100 million towards his legal bills by March 2024. In December 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled Trump disqualified for the Colorado Republican primary for his role in inciting the January 6, 2021, attack on Congress. In March 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court restored his name to the ballot in a unanimous decision, ruling that Colorado lacks the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars insurrectionists from holding federal office. During the campaign, Trump made increasingly violent and authoritarian statements. He also said that he would weaponize the FBI and the Justice Department against his political opponents, and used harsher, more dehumanizing anti-immigrant rhetoric than during his presidency. Trump mentioned "rigged election" and "election interference" earlier and more frequently than in the 2016 and 2020 campaigns, using a "heads I win; tails you cheated" rhetorical strategy. On July 13, 2024, Trump's ear was grazed by a bullet in an assassination attempt at a campaign rally in Butler Township, Pennsylvania. The campaign declined to disclose medical or hospital records. Two days later, the 2024 Republican National Convention nominated Trump as their presidential candidate, with U.S. senator JD Vance as his running mate. References

The graph should have the neutral title "Trump election interference rhetoric" (or similar). The added text is bolded. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Space4Time3Continuum2x, I agree that much of my original image caption can be moved into the narrative text. However, the title of the NY Times source is "Trump’s Pattern of Sowing Election Doubt Intensifies in 2024", implying he would use that "election doubt" after a lost election rather than "interfere" with it beforehand as you suggest. I've just changed the embedded title of the chart to "Donald Trump's sowing of election doubt" per the NY Times source. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Mandruss, DN, SPECIFICO, John Bois, Zaathras, QuicoleJR, GoodDay: notifying everyone who has participated in this discussion so far that RCraig has changed the title of the graph from "Donald Trump’s groundwork for election denial" to "Donald Trump's sowing of election doubts". (No idea why the graph on this page still has the original title. The file at "File:20240524_Trump_groundwork_for_election_denial.svg" has the new title.) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

You may have to Wikipedia:Bypass your cache on your browser to see the updated version. —RCraig09 (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

"Donald Trump's sowing of election doubts" is less preferable to "Donald Trump's election denial rhetoric" IMO, but some of those opposed still seem wary of WP:CRYSTAL for some reason, unless I'm mistaken. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Don't bother adding any graph. None of us know what will happen until it does or doesn't. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

But we do know what has happened up until now, as RS tells us so, hence the advantage of the graph. DN (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Best we exclude the graph. It's crystal balling, to have it. GoodDay (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Point out where the graph (or even the article) PREDICTS something, and I will reconsider my !vote. DN (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

You'll have to choose for yourself. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Still opposed. Zaathras (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Still opposed. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Still opposed. I consider this graph to be unnecessary and undue for inclusion in this article. A wording change does not affect that. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, the graph only going through May makes it arguably outdated at this point. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It's based on the graph in the May 24 NYT article, and it doesn't look as though the Times is going to update it. (The Wayback Machine has captured the article numerous times but unfortunately without the interactive graph.) I don't see that an update is necessary. There are plenty of sources about Trump continuing his claims of voter fraud, now including threats to jail election officials (WaPo, Forbes, USA Today). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Aye, the "update" issue is a red herring. Donald's increasing reliance on the Big lie was well established in May. I'm watching the news and intend to update the chart if newer data appears; let me know if anyone runs across updates. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

His election denialism certainly has weight, and who are we to say whether it will or won't be updated or reiterated in some way. We are editors, not fortune tellers (wink). DN (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Synopsis

Synopsis:

To sow election doubt, Trump escalated use of "rigged election" and "election interference" statements in advance of the 2024 election compared to the previous two elections—the statements described as part of a "heads I win; tails you cheated" rhetorical strategy. (source: NY Times)

Attn: Mandruss DN SPECIFICO John Bois Zaathras QuicoleJR GoodDay Space4Time3Continuum2x

The "oppose" reasoning includes claims of recentism, "is in another article", what if DJT loses Nov2024, what if DJT wins Nov2024, "just say it in text", "don't see why", undue, crystal-balling.

The "include" reasoning is based on Trump's constant and increasing promotion of well-established election denialism that is dominating U.S. political conflict. It strikes at the core of democracy itself, and also will forever be as notable a personal characteristic as lying and conspiracy theorizing peppered throughout this article. It's not WP:UNDUE.

All the "oppose" reasoning is faulty or weak. The chart shows an ongoing trend across three election cycles, quantitatively in a way not adequately conveyable in mere text. Even if Donald were to vanish this afternoon, his Big lie obsession has changed U.S. politics to its core (see DN's sources). The chart itself does not involve crystal-balling; it's the "oppose" reasoning that wrongly invokes its own crystal-balling.

Considering the obvious weight of valid reasoning, the chart should be included. Can we close this discussion? (I agree, the caption can be moved into the narrative text.) — 16:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC) RCraig09 (talk)

@RCraig09: Just because you do not consider it undue does not mean those arguments are invalid. Different users can have different opinions on what is undue, and we go with the opinion that gains consensus. You can call the opposes invalid as much as you want, but that is for whoever closes the discussion to decide. Speaking of which, we should probably ask for an uninvolved third party to close this. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Re a sustained Donald-led attack on the mechanism of democracy itself: I haven't seen a substantive counter-argument regarding what is supposedly undue, other than the bare claim it's undue. I don't think a formal RfC is needed, but I'm OK with it in case it's not resolved here sooner. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

As I read it, there is currently a clear enough consensus to omit. Unless that changes to a "no consensus" situation, an RfC would be improper per WP:RFCBEFORE: "If you can reach a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion, then there is no need to start an RfC."

As for uninvolved closure of this discussion, I have no objection except that it would be a waste of time. A closer would close in favor of the majority unless the minority has a clearly stronger policy basis. DUE is simply too subjective for that. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion is unfortunately deadlocked at this point. Adjusting the context to more accurately reflect the weight of RS on this matter is not an unreasonable suggestion, so it's worth a shot for the sake of consensus. DN (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Let's wait to see if it is in fact deadlocked. I don't quite understand what you are suggesting re "adjusting context...". —RCraig09 (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Since there already is some mention of his election denial rhetoric, it would be more of an adjustment IMO. It's up to you. If you decide to agree to an RfC, I would strongly suggest removing the text and let the graphic speak for itself. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

DN and everyone: per my 18:26 post, I'm OK with a formal RfC. Per the end my 16:16 Synopsis, I'm also OK with an "adjustment" (presumably moving the image caption to the narrative text). —RCraig09 (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I still oppose the addition of the text & graph-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Consensus?

Consensus? No, User:Mandruss, there is not a "clear enough consensus to omit". And the "include" reasoning clearly 'trumps' the bare assertions of the "omit" !votes.

• Include or leaning-include: RCraig09, John Bois, DN, Space4Time3Continuum2x, SPECIFICO
• Exclude or leaning-exclude: Mandruss, Zaathras, QuicoleJR, GoodDay

—RCraig09 (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Who gets to decide the result? GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so perhaps an RfC is in order. Absent uninvolved closure, it's certainly no better than "no consensus". Editors will not submit to your evaluation of the quality of their arguments. For my part, I would object to your characterization of my argument as a "bare assertion". ―Mandruss ☎ 20:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

This is why I want an uninvolved closure. Someone involved in the discussion, especially when it is the person who originally proposed adding the content, isn't exactly the best judge of consensus for the discussion. I believe a formal RFC would solve the issue. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I've added text and two RS to the article since there appears to be a consensus that text is acceptable. I don't understand the objections to the graph. It's a visualization of the information, without having to resort to "many more" or comparing numbers for 2016/2020/2024. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

RfC re including chart quantifying increase in election denial rhetoric

(NY Times source: "Trump’s Pattern of Sowing Election Doubt Intensifies in 2024")

The issue is whether this graphic should be included, in any one of the sections, "2024 presidential campaign" or "False or misleading statements" or "Promotion of conspiracy theories". 15:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Be aware that User:Space4Time3Continuum2x helpfully added text to the "2024 presidential campaign" section: "(Trump) 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 and refusing to commit to accepting the 2024 election results."source1source2. Accordingly, an image caption is probably not necessary, though one was provided in preceding discussion sections.

Various include and exclude/oppose arguments are presented above, without reaching consensus since August 30. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

$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,[6] and overall the {{Supplement}} is linked on more than 2300 pages.[7] The pageviews during the last 12 months were almost 11,000,[8] 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)

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 [9] and it was reverted by User:Zaathras [10]. 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 [11] 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)

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)

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.

Bold-revert-discuss

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)

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: [12] and [13]. 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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2024

Donald trump has been targeted with a second assassination attempt on 9/15/2024, by 58 year old Ryan Routh. GatlinGun511 (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

References

WP:NOTNEWS — The FBI said it is investigating "what appears to be an attempted assassination" or, as WaPo put it, "man arrested on suspicion of possibly trying to assassinate". This is an encyclopedia, not a breaking news ticker. (Waiting for the other shoe sneakers to drop) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

If it 100% confirmed it's an assassination attempt, will it be added back? If someone tried to assassinate president that's notable bruh. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: In the United Kingdom, there has been widespread news coverage of what BBC News describes as "an alleged assassination attempt" on Trump's Florida golf course.

Guidelines at WP:NOTNEWS state: "In principle, all Wikipedia articles should contain up-to-date information. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage."

In my view, the alleged assassination attempt in Florida is not a WP:ROUTINE event, which is described in the guidelines as "Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable."

I think an alleged assassination attempt is not an everyday, ordinary item and it is notable enough to be included in the article. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Exactly! If this happened to Joe Biden or Kamala Harris no one would try to remove the information. Have no idea why notable info is being removed. The fact that an assassination attempt on a u.s. president or any world leader is being considered not notable is crazy, I don't know if this is more political bias or what. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but "There is no deadline". There is no reason not to wait for the story to play out a little more before we talk about whether and how to update the article. The rush to publish is part of what NOTNEWS seeks to avoid. Just Slow Down. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

There's no rush, it's just important information if someone tries to assassinate a u.s. President or any world leader. and some news outlets are calling it an "assassination attempt" now instead of "apparent assassination attempt" because the shooter has a history of criticizing Trump and was politically active, it's almost confirmed he was targeting trump bruh. The last attempt by Thomas Matthew crooks made it in the article right away, why not this time? There's already tons of allegations of political bias. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The last attempt by Thomas Matthew crooks made it in the article right away, why not this time? This is a classic and common fallacy. That things have been done wrong before is hardly justification to do them wrong again and again. It's also whataboutism.

The earlier we publish, the more likely it is we will publish misleading or incorrect information. At first it was an AK-47; now it appears that it was an SKS, which is decidedly NOT an AK-47. And so on, and so on. We see this repeated over and over in current events where editors, completely devoid of patience and restraint, just can't wait to get stuff into articles. It's unrealistic and irresponsible to assume that readers will keep returning to see if early information has been corrected. Newspapers do not have the luxury of waiting, but we do.

There's no rush - Good, then you agree to wait. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

ok how long should we wait then? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd give it at least another week, but don't hold me to that. It's impossible to predict what the future will bring. Other editors may prefer longer, but we would agree on "not now". This is a biography, and biographies are not meant to provide real-time information or anything close to it. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I am in complete and total disagreement with Mandruss on this point, and think that a brief description of this incident obviously belongs in the article now. This is a wiki and if early reports say one type of Soviet rifle and later corrections say another type of Soviet rifle, then we update and correct the article. But I dislike the constant bickering that is so common on contentious topics including this article and mostly stay away, so my comment will probably be ignored. Cullen328 (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah i agree with @Cullen328, information about the recent assassination attempt is already on this wiki, so why not just add it on this article as well, the other page didn't wait. if this happened to kamala i bet absolutely no one would remove this type of info on her page. Assassination attempts on Presidents is historical, and shouldn't be censored HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

shouldn't be censored - Huh? Who is suggesting we should censor this information? Please don't argue against arguments that have not been made; I think the word is "strawman". ―Mandruss ☎ 00:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I gather you have no problem with misleading readers who don't keep returning to see if early information has been corrected. I further gather that you think it's Wikipedia's mission to get information out there quickly, like a newspaper, not an encyclopedia. I must admit I'm surprised to see that from an editor with your extensive experience. But ok. You present a reasoned argument, so you don't have to stick around for it to count. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

First off, the definition of the word "censored" on google is "examine information, and deem it unacceptable to show". That's what your doing. And how about we just mention the new assassination attempt briefly, like the july one, and only mention info that's been 100% confirmed. A wikipedia page about the assassination attempt already exists, i dont see why that article doesn't have to wait but this one does. And i also got more people supporting what I'm saying, including an administrator, so that's why i feel like i have a point. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

i dont see why that article doesn't have to wait but this one does. Same fallacy as before. Delaying the creation of an article is a whole different animal from delaying new content in an existing article. Delaying new content is not what is meant by "censorship" by anybody's definition including Google's. And how about we just mention the new assassination attempt briefly [...] and only mention info that's been 100% confirmed. - No particular objection except that there is no rush to publish; that's enough for me. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Please don't toss around the word censored. Waiting for the dust to settle is not censorship. The story keeps changing, as is common. First shots were fired presumably by him; now he never fired a shot and had no line of sight. Some tried to add sources saying the FBI said it was an assassination attempt. Some say sources say maybe. I think it was an attempt. But I don't know because the sources don't know and thus far he has only been charged with gun violations. WP:NODEADLINE O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Quoting the first two sentences of the widely misunderstood WP:NOTNEWS policy language: In principle, all Wikipedia articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. The policy does not say "Wait a week or maybe more". Cullen328 (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

"Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." Not at issue here; nobody is opposing the stand-alone article.

"In principle, all Wikipedia articles should contain up-to-date information." Read "articles should not contain out-of-date information". Also not at issue here, since nobody is proposing that this article should contain out-of-date information.

The policy does not say "Wait a week or maybe more". True, and it also does not say anything like, "Wikipedia should publish current events information ASAP after it appears in news media."

I think the misunderstanding is yours, but there's an easy way to test that. You can boldly update the policy to include something like, "Wikipedia should publish current events information ASAP after it appears in news media." If what you say is correct, that should be accepted as a useful policy clarification. If a policy is widely misunderstood, shouldn't it be clarified to eliminate further misunderstandings? I'd lay wager it would be rejected as an unwanted policy change.

I know you won't do that—why should you?—and none of what I say here will have any effect on the outcome; the urge to publish NOW is as strong as a mating instinct for too many editors. Still, I felt it needed to be said for the record. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Let's add "Trump was also the target of an apparent second assassination attempt at the Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Florida" next to the sentence about the July one. The new sentence im suggesting doesn't mention the gun used, the perpetrator, or things that can be debunked later on. It's a short sentence and the location was confirmed so i think it's the perfect sentence, so we don't have to wait for over a week when everything in my sentence 100% won't be disproved in a week. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support this language, adding the date. This brief summary is supported by massive numbers of reliable sources less than 36 hours after the shots at the golf course and the subsequent arrest. Cullen328 (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. That would tell readers nothing except location (but I assume you would add date as well). It's reminiscent of KENNEDY SHOT IN DALLAS, the initial wire service lead, and even that said something about the nature of the attack. By omitting essential information, we would be leaving it to readers to fill in the blanks, and "no shot fired, Trump never even seen by the suspect" is not likely to be their first guess. We have to write as if this is the reader's only news source, else we could just avoid it entirely and let readers get their information from newspapers, TV, and social media. More reason to wait. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Mandruss ok so you still don't like it? what about "On September, 15, 2024, Trump was also the target of an apparent second assassination attempt at the Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Florida. The perpetrator did not have a clear line of sight on Trump and did not fire his gun." HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 02:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'll let it percolate. For now, let's see what others have to say. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Mandruss In my newest sentence I suggested, I added the location, date, and added how the perpetrator didn't hit Trump, details you said were missing. The location, date, and Trump not being hit is all 100% confirmed now. Why should we wait a week when the information we're trying to add in 100% confirmed. I'm not trying to add the gun used or anything else that still needs confirmation. A u.s. president almost getting shot is notable to be added to the page, and there's stuff that's confirmed now HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support this language.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment In light of the recency, we need more concrete info, so anything that is added should be brief and to the point. We lack some details normally required in dealing with BLPs and it's possible some sources are providing conflicting information. Authorities have called it an assassination attempt, and it may need to be attributed as such. We also know "The Secret Service confirmed that Routh did not fire any shots at Trump, and that the Republican presidential candidate was not in his line of sight." I prefer the "wait and see" approach, but that's just me. I do still empathize with his supporters wanting to add the info. DN (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

References

• @Darknipples you said "In light of the recency, we need more concrete info, so anything that is added should be brief and to the point." Read my newest sentence I suggested, it's brief and straight to the point, and imo enough concrete info is 100% confirmed like date, location, Trump not hit, etc. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 03:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  I read it. Nothing I said directly contradicts you in particular, as I was making a general comment. I still stand by my position that we attribute calling this an assassination attempt to the authorities instead of putting it in Wikivoice. If you don't have an issue with that, then we agree. DN (talk) 06:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Should be included briefly. You can't "wp:notnews" a foiled assassination plot. Zaathras (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

a foiled assassination plot? Who are you, and what have you done with Zaathras? Any sources for this development, except for the usual conspiracy mongers? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• • DN and anyone else who cares, I want to emphasize that I am not in any way, shape or form a "supporter" of Donald Trump. BLP policy forbids me from saying what I really think of him here. I truly believe that a brief mention of this incident, along with a link to the more detailed article about it, belongs in this article. Cullen328 (talk) 09:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

    Can we go ahead and add the info? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Wait for a consensus. I'm opposed, too, in case that wasn't clear. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion on how to mention this incident? Because that's what it is right now, "the incident" (NY Times - scroll down to fifth paragraph). WaPo: federal law enforcement officials ... have said they are investigating the incident as a possible assassination attempt. ... Charging [the suspect] with an attempted assassination could be complicated by the fact that the suspect never fired his weapon on Sunday, making it even more critical for investigators to gather any available evidence about his intentions and state of mind. You can read the criminal complaint here. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x yes i have a suggestion on how to mention the incident. my first suggestion was a brief sentence that said, "Trump was also the target of an apparent second assassination attempt at the Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Florida." but some disagreed with my sentence because lack of detail. so, here's my second one again. "On September 15, 2024, Trump was also the target of an apparent second assassination attempt at the Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Florida. The perpetrator did not have a clear line of sight on Trump and did not fire his gun." how does that sound? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The sources don't support the text. They say that a Secret Service agent walking one hole ahead of Mr. Trump spotted the barrel of a rifle and opened fire (NY Times), and the suspect ran away. That doesn't say whether the suspect could even see Trump at the time. (It indicates, though, that the Secret Service was doing its job.) The FBI is investigating the incident as a possible attempted assassination, so, IMO, we can't say in Wikivoice that it was an apparent assassination attempt. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x the fact that we've been arguing over a small brief sentence deep deep in the page, for almost a day now is crazy. I don't know anyone in real life who spends their time doing something like this. The incident is notable, a u.s. President almost died, how about you come up with your own sentence that mentions the attempt since mine doesn't work, and can we move on already? Or can someone create a sentence for the page that works HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think rather extreme exaggerations like a u.s. President almost died are useful here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

btw the sources do in fact go with my sentence i suggested, cnn says "apparent assassination attempt". https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/17/politics/trump-incendiary-claims-analysis/index.html so can we use my sentence or can someone create their own and add the new sentence next to the mention of the assassination attempt in july. in the section "2024 presidential campaign" HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

agreed, this is a very drawn out conversation to say the least 🙄 132.147.140.229 (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

No worries Cullen328, I trust your intentions implicitly. I only wished to comment and so far remain neutral. DN (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• I support a short mention of this in the body. The language "apparent assassination attempt" seems common in RS. One or two sentences is due. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support a brief mention of this, though to call it a matter-of-fact assassination attempt in Wikivoice is more than most RSs afford. Cessaune [talk] 19:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - At least a brief mention. It already has its own article and I get the feeling it won't be the last assasination attempt. PackMecEng (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  Finally we've reached an agreement. Ok, someone add the sentence "On September 15, 2024, Trump was also the target of an apparent second assassination attempt at the Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Florida. The perpetrator did not have a clear line of sight on Trump and did not fire his gun." In the section "2024 presidential campaign" next to the sentence about the July assassination attempt. If you don't like my sentence you can make some changes to it. I'm just glad we've reached an agreement there should be mention of the "apparent" new assassination attempt so we can move on. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Cullen328 we've reach an agreement, people agree it should be added briefly. Can you do the edit? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  HumanRightsIsCool, I prefer to keep my direct editing of this article to an absolute minimum. Any extended confirmed editor can add the content. Cullen328 (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  @PackMecEng we've reached an agreement the attempt should be mentioned briefly, can you add the content? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  or @Faolin42, can you do it? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 02:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion appears to be trending towards "include a brief mention" but not towards your suggested wording. Adding the NPR article on what “appears to be an attempted assassination”. The acting director of the Secret Service said that the suspect (not "perpetrator") never had "line of sight" (scare quotes per the source) on Trump. Translated from officialese to English I think that means he never even saw him. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x I literally said if you don't like my brief sentence, if you don't like the wording, you can make changes to it. If you don't like the word "perpetrator" and prefer "suspect" instead, change it, even though you don't need to plagiarize sources word for word, but whatever. Why are we still arguing about one brief sentence deep deep in the article. At first I just assumed you don't wanna mention the new assassination attempt because your worried it might make Trump look cool that he survived another one, but I was being stupid because I'm pretty sure you know that won't change the future election results. I actually don't know why you keep ignoring my other comments, just to fight to make this as long as possible. Can you please give me a reason so I can assume good faith. this conversation has already been way to long, I've wasted a lot of time, and this is pretty much a pointless conversation. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose This language. As to anything else, I do not sign blank cheques. Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

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.[14] ―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)

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.