Before requesting any edits to this protected article, please familiarise yourself with reliable sourcing requirements.
Before posting an edit request on this talk page, please read the reliable sourcing and original research policies. These policies require that information in Wikipedia articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources, and disallow your personal views, observations, interpretations, analyses, or anecdotes from being used.
Only content verified by subject experts and other reliable sources may be included, and uncited material may be removed without notice. If your complaint is about an assertion made in the article, check first to see if your proposed change is supported by reliable sources. If it is not, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted. Checking the archives for previous discussions may provide more information. Requests which do not provide citations from reliable sources, or rely on unreliable sources, may be subject to closure without any other response.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Q1: This page is biased towards/against Trump because it mentions/doesn't mention x. Why won't you fix it?
A1: Having a neutral point of view does not mean giving equal weight to all viewpoints. Rather, it refers to Wikipedia's effort to discuss topics and viewpoints in a roughly equal proportion to the degree that they are discussed in reliable sources, which in political articles is mostly mainstream media, although academic works are also sometimes used. For further information, please read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias.
Q2: Donald Trump has been convicted in the New York trial on felony charges. Why doesn't the opening sentence say that he is a convicted felon?
A2: Wikipedia works by consensus; new information can only be added if it is either uncontroversial or if there is community consensus in favour of the addition.
A discussion on the topic of whether the first sentence should use the wording of convicted felon was held, and the outcome was 'No Consensus'; per Wikipedia's established policy and practice, this means that change is not endorsed by the community, and that the requested addition should not be made.
While consensus can change, before opening a new discussion on the same topic, at minimum, read the previous discussion and either bring new arguments or attempt to address existing arguments against the inclusion of the 'convicted felon' wording. Remember that the policy based arguments are given most weight. Failure to heed this advice may result in your discussion being summarily closed.
Please remember that the Wikipedia community does not contest or dispute the fact that the subject is a duly convicted felon, as established by the relevant reliable sources. The choice not to include such wording in the opening sentence is not meant to indicate endorsement of or opposition to Donald Trump, and is not motivated by partisan animus. Rather, this is an editorial choice, rooted in existing long-standing and community-endorsed policy.
Q3: A recent request for comment had X votes for support and Y votes for oppose. Why was it closed as no consensus when one position had more support than the other?
A3: Wikipedia is built on consensus, which means that editors and contributors here debate the merits of adding, subtracting, or rearranging the information. Consensus is not a vote, rather it is a discussion among community members over how best to interpret and apply information within the bounds of our policy and guideline infrastructure. Often, but not always, the community finds itself unable to obtain consensus for changes or inclusions to the article. In other cases, the community may decide that consensus exists to add or modify material based on the strength of the arguments made by members citing relevant policy and guideline related material here. This can create confusion for new comers or those unfamiliar with Wikipedia's consensus building processes, especial since consensus can change. While all are welcome to participate in consensus building, keep in mind that the best positions for or against including material are based on policy and guideline pages, so it may be in your best interest to read up on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before diving into the debates.
Warning: active arbitration remedies
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message
Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Want to add new information about Donald Trump? Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example:
... or dozens of other places, as listed in {{Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!
Other talk page banners
Donald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Health of Donald Trump was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 June 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Donald Trump. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
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 purge this page.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
Current consensus page
Should the current consensus page be updated to remove all superseded or obsolete Entries?
At present the current consensus page has a lot of entries which are superseded or obsolete, for example: 21. Superseded by #39
... 36. Superseded by #39
... 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)
The shear number of these entries makes the current consensus page longer than it otherwise would be.
Should we remove the superseded and obsolete entries such in the above example 21 and 36 would disappear and 39 would renumbered to 37 (presuming that those were the only two superseded entries in the whole list) and 37 would read: 37. 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)?
Doing this would significantly reduce the current consensus page length and aid readability.
TarnishedPathtalk10:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was about past edit summaries and comments and the possibility that people will decide to make edits based on the new Consneus #54 rather than the old one. Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that would be much of problem that would last more than the short term. Besides that didn't come across as what they meant. Anyway the benefits of having a much shorter Current consensus section would outweigh what you suggest as a problem. Having a shorter Current consensus section would make reading much faster and enable editors to have a grasp of consensus much faster. TarnishedPathtalk13:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We would lose the history of what was superseded or obsoleted and why that was done, and people reading the main space revision history would look up the wrong consensus items. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖14:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't we move obsolete and superseded criteria to a separate subpage and then link it somewhere at the top of the consensus so people can still find the information on them? --Nintendofan885T&Cs apply15:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The concern could be partly addressed. Some of the superseded or obsolete items come in groups: 15–19, 23–24, 35–36. These could be respectively combined, resulting in three lines instead of nine.
FYI there was a proposal a month ago to collapse the whole consensus list [1]. 15:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Bob K31416 (talk)
15. Superseded by lead rewrite. 16. Superseded by lead rewrite. 17. Superseded by #50. 18. Superseded by #63. 19. Obsolete.
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)
Thanks for taking the time. I was thinking of this,
15. – 19. Superseded or obsolete
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)
Doing it in the actual list is not OK with me, per my last. Little point in doing it in this thread; I think we get the idea. ―Mandruss☎22:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought you meant cost in the time doing it. Whatever cost you were referring to, it looks like it's not going anywhere so that's the end of it for me. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think this is a good idea. Collapsing multiple entries in a row which are superseded or obsolete would address why I started this thread by a fair bit. TarnishedPathtalk04:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is frankly silly. The superseded items used to be left "expanded" (uncollapsed) but stricken, as shown here. That worked adequately for awhile, then it was decided readability could be improved by collapsing them instead (I was initially opposed; but it has grown on me). That has worked just fine, and now we're complaining about the "difficulty" of having to visually skip the collapsed (and smaller-text) items and do a little more scrolling? Please. When it comes to trading simplicity for readability (dubious in this case), we're already past the point of diminishing returns. As Space4T indicated, we need this for history tracking, and it's fine where it is. ―Mandruss☎03:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposed to removing the superseded entries, but I am strongly opposed to renumbering, as it would be confusing and it would invalidate the archived discussions referring to it. So, as long as no renumbering is attempted, I support it. Melmann08:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In case anyone is interested, the example I gave above uses the same type of source code that is already in use many times in the list. All it involved was putting before the group of items,
I'm going to do something I have never done before. I am asserting that editors who have worked with the list for years should have far more say in this matter. In this discussion to date, that's Slatersteven, Space4T, Bob K31416, and me. Others should give themselves time to get used to the list before forming judgments that would affect everyone now and future. Perspectives very often change with the passage of time. I won't give this up without doing everything in my power to prevent it. ―Mandruss☎09:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not a policy based argument against change or cutting other editors out of discussion. Bob’s suggested above that it’s easy to implement. TarnishedPathtalk14:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we don't always need a policy to do something. And I never said it wouldn't be easy to implement. That is not the issue here. ―Mandruss☎14:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion may be easy to implement but it makes it much harder for people looking at the main space revision history to find the consensus item in question if they have to read all of them to find #22 mentioned as canceled or obsoleted in #38. And, again, I, for one, don't want to lose the history of each individual consensus item. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖15:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lose the history I don't think any serious proposal would lose the history. One would move it to a different page; another would create this weird two-level collapsed structure for consecutive superseded/canceled/obsolete items; both to save some minimal eyeball travel and scrolling. Smh. I think some people should leave user interface design to people who have done that for a living. ―Mandruss☎15:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just take all the obsolete items, and move them to a hatted section the end? That keeps all the numbering intact, and saves the most space without needing multi-level collapses. It would be more readable, keep the valid/important ones together at the top where they can be seen without scrolling through 100+ lines, and would be easier to maintain in the future. Items deprecated in the future could just be cut and pasted into the hatted section. The WordsmithTalk to me23:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, cost would exceed benefit. It would add a degree of complexity that would not be justified by the dubious, very minor at best, improvement in readability. ―Mandruss☎23:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just an aside...The Current consensus section is frankly HUGE. I'm in favor of almost anything that would scale it down a bit on the reading page. Shearonink (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly why I started this discussion. I'm not wedded to one way of doing it, so much as I'm in favour of almost anything that reduces its size. TarnishedPathtalk11:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead sentence - civil liability for sexual abuse, defamation, financial fraud
The main article E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump is about both lawsuits Carroll brought against Trump. The first one ("Carroll I", Carroll v. Trump (1:20-cv-07311), filed in 2019), was for defamation. After New York passed the Adult Survivors Act in 2022, allowing "victims of sexual offenses for which the statute of limitations has lapsed to file civil suits for a one-year period from November 24, 2022, to November 24, 2023", Carrol brought a second lawsuit ("Carroll II", CARROLL v. TRUMP (2023), 22-cv-10016) for sexual battery and defamation (different incidents of defamation than those in "Carroll I"). Carroll II went to trial first, verdict in May 2023, $5 million in damages. Carroll I followed in January 2024, $83.3 million in emotional, reputational, and punitive damages. Condensing that information into one clause with the link to the main article some editors insist we absolutely need to have (because heaven forbid people should feel the need to read the body) makes for a very long Wikilink. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖14:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there is a better way to do this. It's inevitably wordy. Wordings 2, 3, and 4 avoid the overly long wikilink while simultaneously being true. Cessaune[talk]22:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead sentence: proposal to add "convicted felon"
Donald Trump is a convicted felon now, and it is important context regarding his numerous civil and criminal trials that are ongoing. BasedGigachad (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a discussion with very low participation, just you and me. Personally, I prefer the simpler Palm Beach, Florida. (Now that the Supreme Court has bestowed absolute royal immunity for official acts on King Former Guy, has Mar-a-Lago become the American Buckingham Palace?) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖10:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@R. G. Checkers: What is your evidence for this assertion? Details of the impact on people other than the subject of this article belong elsewhere, and redundancy should be avoided - if we call this an attempted assassination in the first sentence, we don't need to add that it's being treated as an attempted assassination. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to rewording some things like the redundant wording about the investigation, but removing half the subsection places this out of proper WEIGHT considering the significance of the assassination attempt. That's why I reverted your edit. The section should have a brief overview of the incident as a whole, which would include the death and two injuries. Trump's immediate response by raising his fist was directly related to the subject yet you still removed it, and those are relevant details that should be included. R. G. Checkers talk01:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article should not have an overview of the incident as a whole - it should have an overview of the incident as it relates to the subject of this article. The fact that someone unrelated to the subject died protecting someone unrelated to the subject is off-topic for here, pending further developments. And at this point in the unfolding narrative, a much shorter subsection is much more proportionate overall. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. And I question whether it needs a separate subsection here. In my view the question is not how significant it is, but how much material belongs here. Certainly details about the shooter are not relevant to Trump's bio. ―Mandruss☎02:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how would we include trump being taken off stage by secret service in the article after he was (possibly) just shot at?
basically, shooting noises are heard while donald trump is being protected by secret service members—the crowd starts screaming while the "shots" are fired in rapid secession. do we wait for more info about this before writing? or would we write about this now with smthn along the lines of "trump was hosting a rally on january 13 2024 in pennsylvania, when sudden popping noises were heard that caused him to be rushed off stage due to a possible assassination attempt."
sorry abt the bad grammar, in a rush writing this!
On the one hand we have a twitter post citing Newsmax, which is described in Wikipedia as spreading conspiracy theories, which is citing an unnamed purported officer. On the other hand we have USAToday stating bullet wound in their own words: Former President Donald Trump was "fine" Saturday night after an assassination attempt left him with a bullet wound to the ear.KiharaNoukan (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re "there are reports he was struck by glass from a shattered teleprompter" — Here's the part of a C-SPAN video just after the shooting [2]. Note that the two teleprompters are still intact. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder that this page is under enforced BRD, You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message. Pecopteris, you may want to review this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pecopteris, to answer the question you posed to me in an edit summary, no RS call it an "assassination attempt" and therefore it is inappropriate for us to do so. It likely was, but it is "being investigated as an assassination attempt". – Muboshgu (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an example, USA Today, New York Post, Johnathan Turley at The Hill and others call it an assassination attempt. By the time I finish writing this comment and press send, other RS will have said the same thing.
Of course, investigations are underway as to the scale and scope of the plot. But no RS has proposed a possible motive for shooting bullets at Donald Trump's head other than an assassination attempt. "Assassination" is just another term for murder. If you aim a gun at someone's head and fire 5 bullets at them, that's attempted murder. Pecopteris (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can the section "Attempted Assassination" under "2024 Presidential Campaign" be fixed pls because the sentences are choppy and hard to read. I would edit it myself, but I'm not extended auto confirmed. InfiniteSword (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A sentence in the lead has been edited as follows: “A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump, but did not establish that the Trump campaign was involved.” I disagree with that edit, and find it quite preposterous actually. Without the last few stricken words, there is a strong implication that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian interference.
Per the lead of our article about the Mueller special counsel investigation, the report explicitly said that "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities". NPOV requires that this finding of the Report be briefly summarized in our lead. It is this kind of slanted and selective editing that misleads readers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost identical discussions hereand here failed. My take is, we need more editors to enter this discussion and then we should lock in the text with the rest of the consensus. IMO reverting would be fine but I also think that any short discussion just kicks the can down the road yet again. If editors had taken more responsibility in previous discussions we wouldn't have to worry about this. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:Pecopteris and User:GordonGlottal for you opinions about this. So we have unanimity of three editors here at the talk page for restoring the removed text, but the question remains whether it might be better to somehow lock in a more durable consensus in the list of consensus items at the top of this talk page. User:Mandruss, you’re the guru here on such procedural matters, how do you think this matter should be handled procedurally? Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lock in a more durable consensus - A list item doesn't make a consensus more durable. It makes it easier to remember and easier to find in the archive. "rv per current consensus item [x]" carries no more weight than "rv per [archived discussion]". We don't want to list every little consensus; if we did, the list would be hundreds of items long. So, one important question is how likely it is that we will need to remember and find the consensus in the future. As to this particular issue, I lack an opinion on that question. ―Mandruss☎00:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the procedural information. I think the search engine for the talk page archives is pretty good, so I will go ahead and restore the deleted text, and if anyone wants to try adding a consensus item to the top of this talk page then I would likely support that as well. Incidentally, is there a way for a user to be automatically notified whenever an RFC. is opened at this talk page? I feel obliged to get more involved in them, but find it difficult to constantly monitor this page. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mandruss is of course correct that listing it is just for convenience. I didn't mean that we specifically need to list it. What we need is to establish a consensus, which neither of the previous discussions managed. This discussion is spiraling into another big fight—we must make sure that this time it's productive. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the version without the additional words "but did not establish that the Trump campaign was involved." My edit summary: "rmv misleading and inaccurate addition. What's left is simply factual, without adding anything that can be disputed. I will comment and explain on the talk page." The added words "but did not establish that the Trump campaign was involved" are far from what Mueller found: "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." Only those two words "conspired or coordinated".
He found a lot of other improper stuff from the campaign that helped the Russians. Mueller used some time to explain the difference between "collusion" and "conspiracy". He was unable to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt (largely because of obstruction and destruction of evidence) actual "conspiracy", but he found lots of things that fall under the heading of "collusion": cooperation, lying, covering up, aiding and abetting, welcoming, enabling, etc. The Trump campaign welcomed the interference because Trump hoped to benefit from it, and indeed he did. There was even some evidence of conspiracy, especially between Roger Stone and WikiLeaks, and there were clumsy attempts that didn't really succeed, so it wasn't for lack of trying that they weren't busted of conspiring a lot more. They were far from not "involved", as implied by the added words, which are now gone. That wording is simply misleading, so it's better to not say anything there.
I would have no objection if we say “but did not establish that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with that interference.” I also disagree that there is any substantial difference from the version you deleted against consensus, but I am happy to use the exact language of the Mueller Report. I have little expectation that it will be accepted here. (Because I know what Wikipedia has sadly become.) Anyway, I will take this matter to WP:BLPN because a number of editors here continue to insinuate in our lead that Trump somehow conspired≈/coordinated in causing the Russian interference, without even including Trump’s denial. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is the briefest of mentions of a main finding of the Mueller report, which is also mentioned more thoroughly in the body. That's how we write articles here. It's also the longstanding consensus version, so why is someone trying to change it for no good reason? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very obvious insinuation that Trump at least may have colluded or cooperated with the Russian interference. But you seek to exclude the denial by the Mueller Report that such a thing has been established, not to mention excluding Trump's own denial. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a single word that implies any such thing. Your fantasy is getting the better of you. It's the longstanding consensus version, so why are you trying to change it for no good reason? Consensus is against you. We have a super neutral and uncontroversial version.
Anything, the added words were highly misleading and would have needed context undue for the lead to make your addition an NPOV summary of the article content. SPECIFICOtalk12:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the current version in context. It's the second sentence.
Trump won the 2016 presidential election as the Republican Party nominee against Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton while losing the popular vote.[a] A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump. During the campaign, his political positions were described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist. His election and policies sparked numerous protests.
If you don't count the insinuations made by the sentence, it's about Russia, not Trump, and should be deleted from the lead. This is like anti-Trump candy for an obese article that just loves to snack on it. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it simple. We don't need to add more bloat to the lead with what the subject hasn't been shown to do. The status quo language doesn't imply wrongdoing on the subject's part. VQuakr (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC) ETA re Bob K31416: a sentence about how interference into Trump's election is most certainly relevant to an article about Trump. VQuakr (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The news is reporting that (Redacted) was neutralized by the Secret Service while perched atop a building at American Glass Research in Butler. Delectable1 (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
nor do WaPo, CNN or BBC; Reuters and USAToday do; we should say "injured" for now, until this is clarified.
NYT: "The Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies have not yet publicly confirmed that Mr. Trump was shot in the ear, saying only that shots were fired and that the former president was “safe.”" soibangla (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree—There is a photo by Doug Mills of a streak passing his right ear at high speed but it could still be shrapnel from some other object that got hit or of the wrong moment. GordonGlottal (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really? CNN isn't saying it?
CNN: Former President Donald Trump was shot in the ear Saturday evening while speaking onstage at his rally in Butler, Pennsylvania
There is absolutely no penalty to being careful. No one has any information about what hit his ear; CNN is just making a different decision about how to treat his statement. Please immediately self-revert under arbitration restriction you may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message to avoid being blocked from editing. GordonGlottal (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and here are more RS on his ear being shot, not just CNN:
Reuters: Donald Trump was shot in the ear during a Saturday campaign rally, in an attack that left the Republican presidential candidate's face streaked with blood and prompted his security agents to swarm him
USA Today (which was cited in the source): Former President Donald Trump was "fine" Saturday night after an assassination attempt left him with a bullet wound to the ear.
Your edit summary's claim is factually incorrect, and now we're dealing with ad hoc rationalization that, applied logically, would preclude inclusion of any details at all about this incident. The only disputing claims given were from the earlier talk section, where the original poster cited twitter posts from conspiracy theory outlet Newsmax. KiharaNoukan (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but others don't and "The Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies have not yet publicly confirmed that Mr. Trump was shot in the ear, saying only that shots were fired and that the former president was "safe."
There are dozens if not hundreds of cameras trained at the event, copious amounts of High-def video footage and photos, numerous journalists at the event, and analysts available to all these mainstream RS. They have described it in their own words as a shot in the ear based on their own expertise and newsrooms. As you mentioned, CNN even updated their description of the event after they were able to get new information. Inclusion of Trump being shot in the ear has easily met standards for inclusion. Is every detail in RS only made from Secret Service accounting?
Again, this is ad hoc rationalization that does not fit anywhere else. The only disputed info you have ever provided to these multiple RS is from Newsmax. How many RS need to report on this to overcome the burden of a twitter post you found that cites Newsmax?
Al Jazeera now as well: Former United States President Donald Trump has been shot in the ear during a campaign rally
I'll accept it when there is unanimity among RS, which there should be if it's undoubtedly correct
"The Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies have not yet publicly confirmed that Mr. Trump was shot in the ear, saying only that shots were fired and that the former president was “safe.”" soibangla (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So every RS imaginable needs to say something because you dug around for contradicting info and came up with a twitter post referencing Newsmax, and saw that some other RS describe the same thing in a different manner, without actually contradicting. Do you have any RS claiming that Trump was not shot in the ear, besides a WP:NEWSMAX claim nested in WP:RSPTWITTER? Perhaps the reason that this is not mentioned with extreme specificity and consistency that you are requesting in this isolated demand for rigour is because nobody has taken the Newsmax claim seriously.
Axios: after former President Trump was shot in the ear at a rally in Pennsylvania.
if it is indisputable he was shot, wouldn't RS unanimously and explicitly report he was shot? I say we should wait until they do. soibangla (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rush to say he was shot or anything. We know he was wounded, reliable sources agree on the fact he was wounded, and there is no need to specify where the wound came from/how it came about until the sources coalesce on a cause of the wound. I have no problem with sentences like "injured during a [shooting/assassination attempt/etc as agreed upon], but there is absolutely no rush to say he himself was shot while that is not confirmed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it is certain he was injured
it is not certain he was shot
some RS report he was shot, others do not
"The Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies have not yet publicly confirmed that Mr. Trump was shot in the ear"[5]
It wasn't a glass shard from a shattered glass teleprompter since it did not shatter. See my message at the end of the talk section "Trump was struck by a bullet" we say. You can see the unshattered teleprompter in this C-SPAN video just after the shooting [6]. As far as I know, the false "glass shard from shattered teleprompter" theory was the only reason for thinking Trump's ear might not have been hit by a bullet. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn’t matter. We aren’t in the business of second guessing reliable sources. There is no consensus in reliable sources that he was shot - while quite a few are reporting that he was shot (and he himself is claiming that), there are many others that are not reporting that - and are intentionally sticking to wording like “injured” or “wounded” or similar until the facts become clear.
Do I personally think it’s likely that the damage was caused by a bullet grazing him or barely missing him but the pressure wave/heat harming him? Yes, that seems like the most likely based on my medical background. But my opinion (and yours) don’t matter - we follow the reliable sources, and until they have a consensus that he was shot (or the damage was caused by a bullet), we should not be reporting that. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's illogical to take the fact some sources don't opine on the subject as evidence against what other sources positively state. Besides, which sources at this point are holding out on calling it a gunshot wound? Riposte97 (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the conflicting reports regarding whether Donald Trump was shot in the ear, it is crucial for Wikipedia editors to handle these sources with meticulous care. While CNN initially reported that Trump fell on stage, other sources like Reuters and USA Today have asserted he was shot. This disparity underscores the need for precision in how this incident is documented on Wikipedia. At this point, much is rather unclear about the matter except that emotions are raw.
To uphold Wikipedia's standards of verifiability and neutrality, editors should use careful language when citing these sources. Terms such as "fell", "injured" or "wounded" would be suitable until there is definitive confirmation from official sources such as the Secret Service or law enforcement agencies.
Some reliable sources have unequivocally stated that Trump was shot, while others have refrained from making definitive claims. This complexity necessitates a cautious approach to ensure that Wikipedia articles accurately reflect the current state of information, while respecting the ongoing nature of the investigation.
In summary, by acknowledging the initial reports a and choosing precise terminology such as "injured," Wikipedia editors can maintain accuracy and neutrality in documenting this significant event, while awaiting further developments and official statements. Much exists which remains unknown regarding the event. Please exercise caution and restraint until we can glean further information.Hu Nhu (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
with the current level of information available, and the totality of how reliable sources are reporting it, it is an egregious error for Wikipedia to conclusively state at this time that he was shot. we should say "injured" for the time being soibangla (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few editors have claimed that this is a question of RS silence vs. RS saying definitively. CBS this morning here tells us It's not yet clear whether Trump was hit by a bullet or shrapnel. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw John Dickerson on that CBS TV show sunday morning and he talked about the shrapnel being glass. When I later found out that the glass shrapnel story was false, it didn't look good for CBS. In a later story, CBS no longer mentioned shrapnel [7]. Bob K31416 (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the exact article I linked to in the previous comment. It says It's not yet clear whether Trump was hit by a bullet or shrapnel.GordonGlottal (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the sources have moved past the ambiguity. Everything I've seen coming out now agrees that Trump was shot. The government seems to agree that he was shot. Our article should therefore say he was shot. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the bullet have penetrated the brain if it had pierced the ear? The bleeding was picturesque but appears to have stopped by the time the Service Service hustled Trump into the SUV (Politico). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖15:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the bullet had approached perpendicular to the side of his head, it would indeed have killed him. Fortunately, it flew parallel to the side of his head and just grazed his ear. The angle is everything. He may have a little scar as a memento. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He was treated by Ronny Jackson, his former WH physician, who said that the bullet was far enough from his head to not cause a concussion and it just "took the top of his ear off". I guess I'll continue to believe my lying eyes coz numerous photographs and videos show TFG with the top of the ear bleeding but still firmly attached to the rest of the ear. But, of course, now hidden by a large bandage. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖17:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, maybe it was a miniature cruise missile? Anyhow, the Politico article likened Trump to a gorilla, P.T Barnum, Mussolini, and Hitler. Not something you would want to come across on a dark night. It reminded me of the monster from the id in Forbidden Planet and the scene where the monster was hit over and over again by shards of glass but kept coming. [8]Bob K31416 (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
History of BRD violation and edit warring over mention of Mueller in lead
For over a year, the lead of the Donald Trump article has contained this content with only slight variations in the wording:
Then that was changed, without any previous discussion or consensus, by the dubious actions of @Anythingyouwant:.
02:35, 14 July 2024: Anythingyouwant came along and changed that wording by adding "but did not establish that the Trump campaign was involved." That is very misleading.
03:25, 14 July 2024: Anythingyouwant starts a misleading thread on the talk page that does not mention that the deleted wording was what she had added without any discussion or consensus.
01:17, 15 July 2024: Anythingyouwant restores her deleted content, thus violating the "enforced BRD" provision in place for the article. The edit summary cites a dubious and questioned consensus of three people on the talk page. Few had commented, and there were concerns about this fact. Yet Anythingyouwant went ahead and violated BRD.
03:04, 15 July 2024: SPECIFICO warned Anythingyouwant about her violation of BRD and asked her to self-revert. Anythingyouwant refused to self-revert.
05:08, 15 July 2024: Valjean (myself) reverted Anythingyouwant's violation, thus restoring the longstanding consensus version, which is still in place as of this writing.
That version is about as minimal a mention as possible of what's in the body on that subject, which is what we do with a lead here. Any additions to that sentence just lead to grief, so we have not added more. It is a fact that the Russians interfered in the election to help Trump. Period. That is unquestioned by reasonable editors. The lead says nothing about how Trump and his campaign reacted to that interference. (They welcomed it.) It says nothing about their proven cooperation with that interference. The lead is silent on those matters, so Anythingyouwant's claims of a BLP violation are bogus. In fact, their addition misleadingly added content which mentioned those matters. It is best to stay silent about that in the lead.
The current, very longstanding, version is super neutral, so don't fuck with it. It deals with a very delicate matter in a wise manner. If anyone wants to change that consensus version, let them start a new section and establish a clear consensus of MANY editors, preferably with an RfC, but only after a good discussion establishes the need for an RfC. If the discussion shows a clear consensus to keep the current version, an RfC would be highly improper. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As already mentioned above, this matter is pending at WP:BLPN. So let’s keep it centralized there until that section is closed. And you can bring your personal criticisms of me to my user talk, assuming they are significant. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated attempts to make changes to the lead without consensus is not appropriate, regardless of what happens at BLPN. DN (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The uninvolved editors at BLPN say it's not a BLP violation and that this is a content dispute that should be resolved on this talk page. You made the edit two or three hours after the shooting, were reverted about half an hour later, started the discussion on the talk page about half an hour after that, and then ended it less than 24 hours later by reinserting the challenged content. One editor agreeing with you and another one saying we need further discussion is not a unanimous consensus of several editors at talk page. I, too, find it difficult to constantly monitor this page but it's part of editing this page. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖13:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with you @Space4Time3Continuum2x:. That "consensus" was rather dubious for such a radical change to a very longstanding consensus version, especially in the lead. Leads are notoriously filled with landmines, and changes should be very conservative and uncontroversial. Controversial changes should be thoroughly discussed so the change is backed by a large consensus.
BTW, I notice you mention the shooting. AFAIK, that doesn't have anything to do with this matter as it's not about the shooting,....BUT it may, as far as AYW is concerned. She did reveal a RGW motivation with this comment: "Maybe because misleading anti-Trump propaganda is a danger to his life? Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:26, 15 July 2024" Well, BLPN finds zero BLP problems with the sentence, and certainly no "misleading anti-Trump propaganda". That there was sweeping Russian interference is a fact. That it was performed to benefit Trump is also a fact. That is totally neutral and uncontroversial content.
It says NOTHING at all about the backstory, which is documented in several of our articles. Never in modern history has an American president first discussed his candidacy with America's enemies before doing it with the American people. He did that in November 2013, and the Russians then openly promised they would help him. They fulfilled their promise with their sweeping interference in our elections. Never in modern history has an American political candidate welcomed and cooperated with illegal help from the enemy of America, help that violated our national security in many ways and successfully installed PutinsPuppet as his proxy. Trump has never dared utter a single word of criticism of Russia and Putin. Never before has America been in the situation where the citizens of America's chief enemy often and openly celebrate that THEY chose and elected OUR president. They know what happened, and so do we. Trump was unable to hide all the evidence, even though he tried.
Yet, we say NOTHING about that in the lead, and AYW should be happy for that. It would just be undue for the lead of THIS article. We deal with it elsewhere.
We are not going to change our PAG just because Trump was nearly killed, bad as that was. He gets no more protection or whitewashing here because of that. We will still oppose such policy-violating actions by his fans. They need to take their RGW motives elsewhere and not pollute Wikipedia with them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven: We say nothing that can remotely be considered an accusation, even though AYW insists we do. BLPN doesn't find any BLP violation of any kind. I'm beginning to think we can end this thread. What do you think? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valjean, simply as a question of process I absolutely disagree that there is a current consensus. Previous discussions [9][10] rather obviously failed to establish one, and the text remaining relatively stable doesn't change that. This is one of the few pages with as many active editors as the noticeboard, so I don't think it was necessary to punt it there. IMO it's clear that we'll need an RFC (on this page) and I encourage you to not waste too much of everyone's time, either by letting the discussion die without establishing a consensus yet again, or by asking editors to pour energy into an endless freeform discussion, before calling one. Let's get this over with, accept the result, and not talk about it again for a very long time. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We normally consider such an accepted and longstanding version to be the default consensus version, but if you think we should also hammer it fast with an RfC, I have no objection. I'd also like to see it listed and numbered in the first section. I fully agree with you that we don't want to keep dealing with this type of crap again and again. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK great. @Anythingyouwant thanked me for the previous edit so I guess we're all agreed. I know it's a little quick to escalate to an RFC but 2 previous discussions failed and you guys are obviously not going to work this out between you. Editor time is valuable. I suggest we offer the following:
Option 1:A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump.
Option 1.5: Previous, with the following added: The investigation failed to determine whether Trump had committed obstruction of justice.
Option 2:A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump and that Trump's campaign expected to benefit from its efforts, but did not establish that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia.
Option 2.5: Previous, with the following added: The investigation failed to determine whether Trump had committed obstruction of justice.
To refresh memories, Mueller concluded (Vol. I pp. 1-2) that Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. and that (Vol. II p. 2) [I]f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. I have also gone back to the previous discussions and reviewed all proposals and concerns aired. This is the best limited balance of options I could come up with. Even if this isn't acceptable to you both, let's please switch to a discussion of what the options should be. Thanks all. GordonGlottal (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There’s an ongoing discussion at WP:BLPN, so I favor waiting to see what happens there before proceeding with an RFC. As for the RFC options, one major option is leaving the matter out of the lead, seeing as how the purported purpose of the longstanding language is not to say anything about Trump or his conduct, but rather to say something about Russia and its conduct. If it is included in the lead, I support being brief. If the intent is not to say anything in the lead about Trump or his actions, then we can rephrase it to more clearly achieve that objective. However, if the objective is to say something about Trump or his activities, it appears that would be very controversial because the Mueller Report neither found wrongdoing by Trump nor cleared him of wrongdoing (which prosecutors almost never do anyway because proving a negative is almost impossible). So here are some options:
OPTION A: Don’t mention Russia or Mueller in the lead.
OPTION B: ”Several countries interfered in the 2016 election, including Russia which supported Trump, but Trump is not known to have conspired or coordinated with them.”
OPTION C: Several countries interfered in the 2016 election, including Russia which supported Trump, but Trump is not known to have conspired or coordinated with them, nor is it known that the interference affected the election outcome.”
OPTION D: “An investigation led by Robert Mueller confirmed that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election in support of Trump, but Mueller reached no conclusions as to whether Trump or his campaign conspired or coordinated with that Russian interference.”
OPTION E: “An independent counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump, but did not establish that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with that interference.”
At this point, my first choice would be “A” because what Russia did was Russia’s choice, not Trump’s, and this is an article about Trump, not Russia. My second choice would be “C” because it lays out the facts in a neutral manner.
Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no point in running an RFC which is entirely composed of options that would satisfy one party, and contains no options to satisfy the other. The job of an RFC is to develop consensus. If your proposal represented this discussion then we could work it out without an RFC. Re venue: this is frankly not a dispute for BLPN, as editors have told you there. In general this page has enough active editors that disputes should rarely be referred outside. I think adding an Option 0: No mention of Russian interference and Option 0.5: Add only A special counsel investigation failed to determine whether Trump had committed obstruction of justice. lower in the lede before the impeachments, could be a good idea. GordonGlottal (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were a ton of comments yesterday at BLPN on this subject, you’re right as to where that discussion seems to be going, but I’d like to see if any more comments are added there today before formulating the RFC. You’re also right that we should pick two options that reflect different opinions, and we have lots of candidate wording to choose from above. Feel free to amend your suggestions above using strikethrough and underline, and I will too. You’ve identified two primary suggestions including this one: “A special counsel investigation failed to determine whether Trump had committed obstruction of justice. My main concern about that one is that “obstruction of justice” is too narrow, and would replace it with “any crime” because that would include things like conspiracy. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gordon, my main concern is that “obstruction of justice” is too narrow, and would prefer if we replace it with “any crime” because that would include things like conspiracy. Is that okay? Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. If we add anything, it's better to use Mueller's language, especially because "crimes" is too vague and is precisely the thing Mueller was not allowed to find. Even if he had found a crime, he could not evaluate or indict it. He could only collect evidence and let Congess decide if it was a crime, which the GOP controlled Congress would not do. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stated my concern, and described a way to address it. You disagree with the way I proposed to address it, so would you please suggest alternative language that addresses my concern? Reminder: my main concern is that “obstruction of justice” is too narrow, because it would not include things like conspiracy. Or are you saying that “obstruction of justice” is not too narrow? I cannot figure out what your stance is, User:Valjean. Additionally, Rosenstein’s order establishing the special counsel authorized Mueller “to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters” if the Special Counsel “believes it is necessary and appropriate.” So Mueller was apparently not prevented from prosecuting any relevant crimes, right? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not share your concern, and no one else does either. Your attempt at BLPN was solidly rejected. No one sees your claimed problem, so I suggest you drop the stick.
I have clearly stated my preference that we not get into the weeds in the lead of this article. It's too complicated an issue for the lead here. Such added content is undue in this article. Period. The mention we have is as short a mention as possible to satisfy the demands of LEAD, and (except for you) is so uncontroversial that it has been accepted as the longstanding consensus version. That history says a lot, and, barring any new information, I see no reason to touch it at all, not even to change a comma. Just leave it alone. It has served us well. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
If we added your mention of "crime", we would be going against Mueller's concerns that Trump may well have committed crimes. Trump was never exonerated in even the slightest of senses. On the contrary, justified suspicions still exist, and those closest to Trump say he did commit crimes. Your idea that Trump committed no crimes is not based on a reading of RS. That idea is only found in unreliable sources. In fact, your attempt here seems to parallel Attorney General William Barr's criticized, and failed, attempt to whitewash Trump. See the Barr letter. Don't do that. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, even though you have expressed that our sentence puts Trump's life in danger. That's just not true. We won't change our PAG to assuage your concerns. They are groundless. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To say that I’m the only one concerned about the status quo is false, we had a unanimous consensus of several editors just this week for changing it (that consensus evaporated once you and a couple others got involved), and the matter has arisen repeatedly in the past year or so, as GordonGlottal has said below and above (with links). Thank you, though, for further explaining your position. In the United States, charges are very often dropped even though the prosecutor still suspects guilt, the reason being that the prosecutor has to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That would be no justification for a Wikipedia lead to say that a person was investigated while omitting that the prosecutor ultimately found no provable crime. It would be (and is) a gross NPOV violation, and I intend to pursue it here, I’m not carrying a stick, but I am carrying a perfectly legitimate complaint. It’s true that Mueller, even if he found a crime, could have kicked the ball down the road to Congress, and he also could have described the crime in his report, and the crime could have been prosecuted after Trump left office. None of those things happened, and yet you insist to insinuate in the lead that they may have or should have. That’s very bad editing, and there are ways to very concisely solve the problem. If, as you say, the current material in the lead is not supposed to say or imply anything about Trump’s actions, then it does not belong in the lead of this particular article, just as the present lead does not mention any of the other countries that interfered in the 2016 election. However, if we want this lead to say something about Trump’s actions (which it obviously does since we’re talking about a special counsel investigation) then we need to say something about the outcome of that investigation. Saying someone was suspected of criminal activity without saying that the suspicions could not be proved is absurd. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are, once again, conflating some of the many things we say on this page with what's actually in that sentence:
"a Wikipedia lead to say that a person was investigated while omitting that the prosecutor ultimately found no provable crime."
"None of those things happened, and yet you insist to insinuate in the lead that they may have or should have."
"Saying someone was suspected of criminal activity ..."
Where in that sentence do you find anything like what you mention in those three quotes of yours? You are fantasizing, again, about what is "not" there, not, as you claim, what "is" there. Just drop the stick. No one else sees what you see. We see what "is" there, not what is "not" there. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, there is nothing now in the lead about the outcome of the Special Counsel investigation, which overall was favorable to Trump, in that the Mueller Report concluded that no crime by Trump could be proved. This was a very historic event, and if you want to hide it from readers of the lead, then I very much urge that we remove mentioning the special counsel in the lead. A special counsel is not necessary to investigate foreign governments, so the lead very much implies now that Trump was investigated, which he was, everyone knows that he was, but you don’t want to describe the outcome of the investigation because you don’t like it. And you badmouth and denounce any editor who says otherwise. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...the Mueller Report concluded that no crime by Trump could be proved. that's a truism because it was a presupposition of the Mueller investigation, but it doesn't convey any information about Trump for the same reason. The claim that the MR was favorable to Trump overall is a right-wing talking point but not true (and certainly not broadly accepted as truth). VQuakr (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that Mueller presupposed that no crime by Trump could be proved. That was one of the primary purposes of the investigation, and I am not aware that Mueller went into the investigation with a predetermined conclusion. In any event, before the lead is modified, it would probably be a good idea to make sure any change is fully supported by the article body. Likewise, before an RFC is conducted, it wouldn’t hurt to do a talk page survey to see if there is currently a lack of cobsensus. So that’s what I plan to do, first focus on the article body, then perhaps do a talk page survey. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This thread is about considering an RFC. The people here mostly don’t think an RFC is needed or appropriate. However, a lot of different insertions have been suggested for the lead, and I have not settled on any one of them yet. I have to see which is best supported by the article body, and also whether the article body needs to be improved. Then I may do a survey. I still stand by my view that this matter is handled atrociously in the lead, and it’s a gross NPOV violation, even if we assume it’s not a BLP violation. But no such violation is needed to consider improvements to the lead, and to do so without an RFC. So this is my last comment in this section about doing an RFC. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In general this page has enough active editors that disputes should rarely be referred outside. So why does this one need to be referred outside which is what an RfC does? And why now? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖18:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Outside input is almost always valuable. Also, having a lot of active editors here doesn’t mean they have the same political balance as the whole of Wikipedia. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that’s the ideal. But a person’s attitudes of all kinds often come into play, even if they try not to let that happen (which many editors do not). Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Space4Time, what we need is the structure of an RFC where main parties to a dispute stop going in circles and reformulate the question in a narrow way that makes it easy for other editors to weigh in and choose one option for consensus. I am happy to just not tag it. Usually outside editors aren't helpful to contentious pages with enough editors of their own, discussion just turns into a partisan vote. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gordon, I agree that we should try to solve this here, without an RfC. Only if that grinds into a deadlock, without a clear consensus, should we stop the thread and create a new one as an official RfC. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's very frustrating that two previous discussions, involving many editors, were allowed to trail off without reaching consensus. That's what set us up for another round of this. Editor time is valuable, and duplicating discussions is wasteful. Given the amount of effort that has already gone into this topic, we have a responsibility to do our jobs (reach consensus by whatever means) so that editors in 2025 don't have to worry about this. I think it's pretty clear that open discussion will not reach a compromise, any more than it did in 2022 or 2023, and the longer it goes on the less energy remains for arranging an RFC format. Sometimes I think people try to drag these out on purpose in the hope of fatiguing opponents, which may work termporarily, but does nothing to make the next time someone reverts this simpler. Which is guaranteed to happen. Thus from the beginning of this discussion I have been singularly focused on ensuring that this discussion actually accomplishes what the last two failed. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Add to current version: "A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump, and that Trump's campaign expected to benefit from its efforts, but did not establish that the campaign "conspired" or "coordinated" with Russia.
3. Add to current version: "A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump, that Trump's campaign welcomed and encouraged it, believing it would benefit from the Russian efforts, but did not establish that the campaign "conspired" or "coordinated" with Russia.
Number 2 slightly modifies Option 2: above, which is: A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump and that Trump's campaign expected to benefit from its efforts, but did not establish that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia.
I predict that any addition to the current version will be extremely controversial, create a lot of debate, and will be a constant and unending target for complaints from readers and editors. I believe that's why it has existed, without any serious debate, for so long. That peaceful history speaks in its favor. AFAIK, only AYW has really complained.
I prefer we just keep our current, status quo, version. It satisfies our LEAD requirement for mention of what's in the body, but leaves all contentious aspects for the body and other articles. Other stuff, added to our short version, are undue for the lead and create more heat than light. The lead is a bad place to get into the weeds. This is not the Russian interference or Mueller special counsel investigation article where that would be appropriate.
I am a bit uncertain about the best punctuation to use. I'm a native American English speaker, but have lived in Europe for many years, where British English is spoken, and I also speak another language every single day. That makes me a bit "language confused", hence my frequent grammatical and punctuation errors. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree that there appears to be consensus for the status quo given the lack of broad support for any change. VQuakr (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gordon, we would not need an RfC simply to satisfy a small and ill-founded minority view. Those previous discussions demonstrated the proposals failed ONUS. That is dispositive to establish that the text would be UNDUE. SPECIFICOtalk19:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously there are some outliers with a difference of opinion in how sources should be expressed. Nothing in RS seems to have changed much since the status quo was reached, so in my view, it's unclear why reexamination seems prudent at this time. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under the main "Public Image" section of the article there is a subheading "Incitement of violence". Would it perhaps be more neutral to have the subheading of "Alleged incitement of violence" as, to date, Trump has not been convicted in court of inciting violence. He has been accused by opponents and others of inciting violence. As far as I'm aware, the accusation of inciting violence has not been independently proven. A citation in the subsection states that according to some experts "Trump's rhetoric caused an increased incidence of hate crimes." That is the view of some experts, but not all experts. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As wrong and horrible as the attempted assassination is, we won't change our PAG because of it. Trump's rhetoric has often encouraged physical violence, even saying he'd pay the legal expenses of his fans who carried out his requests for violent action, and RS have documented that. On January 6, he was warned that some in the crowd had weapons, yet he demanded the mags that detect weapons to be turned off. Then he ordered that crowd to go to the Capitol and "fight".
These are not unproven allegations. They are facts. We document what RS say. Maybe he'll learn to temper himself a bit, now that he has felt the consequences of such rhetoric, but I won't hold my breath. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image in "2024 presidential campaign section"
The left image was added to the section on July 2, showing Trump with the raised fist (caption as edited in a later edit):
Trump rally in New Hampshire, January 2024Trump rally in New Hampshire, January 2024
After the shooting, editor Nick.mon replaced it with the (more peaceful?) image on the right. I challenged the edit, and Nick.mon reinserted the challenged image instead of discussing it on the Talk page (Nick.mon, please self-revert and take a look at the active arbitration banner). IMO, the second image is not representative of Trump rally behavior prior to the shooting. Thoughts? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖12:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I didn't think the reason of that image was the raised fist, I just thought it was an image about his campaign and the other one was quite better. If we want to insert a pic with Trump raising his fist I'd suggest this one: -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not super concerned about "more peaceful"/"representative of Trump rally behavior" and I do think we should use a higher-quality image than had been there. But we have him in a talking gesture for the 2016 campaign, so a fist, thumbs-up, etc. makes sense to me for variety. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal
I prefer the additional information we get from the NH image (surrounded by his Secret Service detail, his fist in motion) to the image with Trump in high-res and the rest of the image blurry. We already have two pictures with Trump behind a lectern, so we can do without a third one. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖18:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1. The image that shows the crowds and the Secret Service and everything is both more representative and better for variety than just another picture of Trump talking. The later proposal is also decent, certainly better than Trump taking behind a lectern again. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 July 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
.svg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Not done Read the references. Read the instructions. Cullen328 (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
