Talk:Donald Trump

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176: 14 days

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

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: 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

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

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.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 2, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
February 12, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
September 17, 2016	Good article nominee	Not listed
May 25, 2017	Good article nominee	Not listed
December 2, 2018	Good article nominee	Not listed
July 15, 2019	Good article nominee	Not listed
August 31, 2019	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
April 29, 2020	Peer review	Reviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

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 sourced must 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.

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.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Template:WikiProject Donald Trump

United States: Television / Presidential elections / Presidents / Government Top‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance).

Conservatism High‑importance

	Conservatism portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City High‑importance

	New York City portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American / Political parties High‑importance

	Politics portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as High-importance).

Business Mid‑importance

	Business portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television Mid‑importance

	Television portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government

	Biography portal 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 supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance).

2010s Top‑importance

	2010s portal 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography Top‑importance

	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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 233 million views since December 2007.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2023.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 131 times. The weeks in which this happened:

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.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Cuozzo, Steve (November 16, 2013). "Don't Trust Anything on Wikipedia". New York Post.
Popper, Ben (July 22, 2015). "Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Wikipedia page". The Verge.
Merrill, Jeremy (February 1, 2016). "On Wikipedia, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate". New York Times.
Germ, Erik (May 28, 2016). "5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day". Cracked.com.
Guo, Jeff (October 25, 2016). "Wikipedia is fixing one of the Internet's biggest flaws". The Washington Post.
Alcantara, Chris (October 27, 2016). "The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates' Wikipedia pages". The Washington Post.
Staff Writer (December 21, 2016). "Most-edited Wikipedia pages of 2016 revealed". BBC News.
Gartenberg, Chaim (January 20, 2017). "Wikipedia editors can't decide if Trump is the president yet". The Verge.
Wyrich, Andrew (June 5, 2017). "Someone is trying to get Trump's official portrait deleted from Wikipedia". The Daily Dot.
Warren, Tom (22 November 2018). "Siri thinks Donald Trump is a penis". The Verge.
Blumenthal, Eli (22 November 2018). "Wikipedia vandalizing causes Siri to show a lewd image when asked about Donald Trump". USA Today.
Griffin, Andrew (23 November 2018). "Asking Siri for information about Donald Trump shows explicit image after Wikipedia edit". The Independent.
Gander, Kashmira (23 November 2018). "Someone hacked Donald Trump's Wikipedia page, replaced photo with image of penis". Newsweek.
Martin, Alan (26 November 2018). "The Trump penis Wikipedia war has kicked off again". The Inquirer.
Brandom, Russell (December 3, 2018). "Wikipedia engages the 'nuclear option' after Trump penis hack". The Verge.
Mak, Aaron (May 28, 2019). "Donald Trump's Wikipedia Entry Is a War Zone". Slate.
Pasternack, Alex (March 7, 2020). "How Wikipedia's volunteers became the web's best weapon against misinformation". Fast Company.
Flood, Brian (May 21, 2020). "Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics". Fox News.
Evon, Dan (November 19, 2020). "Does Loser.com Redirect to Trump's Wikipedia Page?". Snopes.
Williams, Zoe (October 23, 2023). "Why is Elon Musk attacking Wikipedia? Because its very existence offends him". The Guardian.
Hays, Gabriel (May 31, 2024). "CNN host suggests Trump conviction not mentioned prominently enough on former president's Wikipedia page". Fox News.
Harrison, Stephen (June 4, 2024). "The Most Heated Debate on Trump's Felony Conviction Is Happening on ... Wikipedia?". Slate.

Section sizes

Section size for Donald Trump (97 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	11,196	11,196
Early life and education	7,116	7,116
Business career	148	37,176
Real estate	2,031	14,139
Manhattan and Chicago developments	6,492	6,492
Atlantic City casinos	3,972	3,972
Clubs	1,644	1,644
Licensing of the Trump brand	1,708	1,708
Side ventures	7,611	10,841
Trump University	3,230	3,230
Foundation	5,696	5,696
Legal affairs and bankruptcies	4,644	4,644
Media career	5,560	5,560
Political career	2,103	72,207
Presidential campaigns and speculations (2000–2011)	2,663	2,663
2016 presidential campaign	7,060	22,544
Campaign rhetoric and political positions	6,206	6,206
Financial disclosures	3,675	3,675
Election to the presidency	5,603	5,603
2020 presidential campaign	4,756	24,003
Election	3,567	3,567
False claims of voting fraud, attempt to prevent presidential transition	9,113	9,113
Concern about a possible coup attempt or military action	2,512	2,512
January 6 Capitol attack	4,055	4,055
2024 presidential campaign	17,830	20,894
Election and presidential transition	3,064	3,064
First presidency (2017–2021)	159	179,289
Early actions	2,413	2,413
Conflicts of interest	2,973	2,973
Domestic policy	24	24,685
Economy	4,092	4,092
Climate change, environment, and energy	4,719	4,719
Deregulation	3,519	3,519
Health care	4,132	4,132
Social issues	8,199	8,199
Pardons and commutations	2,572	2,572
Immigration	4,393	22,908
Travel ban	5,249	5,249
Family separation at the border	6,610	6,610
Trump wall and government shutdown	6,656	6,656
Foreign policy	2,901	37,240
Trade	2,551	2,551
Russia	4,854	4,854
Asia	16	10,968
China, Hong Kong, Taiwan	5,223	5,223
North Korea	5,729	5,729
Middle East	23	15,966
Afghanistan	3,084	3,084
Israel	2,652	2,652
Saudi Arabia	2,252	2,252
Syria	3,850	3,850
Iran	4,105	4,105
Personnel	8,914	8,914
Judiciary	4,723	4,723
COVID-19 pandemic	291	32,806
Initial response	7,631	7,631
White House Coronavirus Task Force	6,073	6,073
World Health Organization	2,683	2,683
Pressure to abandon pandemic mitigation measures	8,237	8,237
Political pressure on health agencies	2,688	2,688
Outbreak at the White House	2,807	2,807
Effects on the 2020 presidential campaign	2,396	2,396
Investigations	1,079	26,049
Financial	3,114	3,114
Russian election interference	6,487	6,487
FBI Crossfire Hurricane and 2017 counterintelligence investigations	2,573	2,573
Mueller investigation	12,796	12,796
First impeachment	6,833	13,847
Impeachment trial in the Senate	3,627	3,627
Second impeachment	3,387	3,387
Post-presidency (2021–present)	5,023	35,647
Business activities	2,382	2,382
Investigations, criminal indictments and convictions, civil lawsuits	1,134	28,242
FBI investigations	5,489	5,489
Criminal referral by the House January 6 Committee	683	683
Federal and state criminal indictments	7,533	7,533
Criminal conviction in the 2016 campaign fraud case	7,704	7,704
Civil judgments against Trump	5,699	5,699
Assessments	18	6,748
Public	4,338	4,338
Scholarly	2,392	2,392
Political practice	48	29,606
False or misleading statements	9,671	9,671
Rhetoric	3,176	3,176
Promotion of conspiracy theories	4,256	4,256
Social media	6,228	6,228
Relationship with the press	6,227	6,227
Personal life	3,493	30,684
Wealth	8,330	8,330
Racial views	14,127	14,127
Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct	4,734	4,734
Notes	136	136
References	30	30
Works cited	18	7,572
Books	1,806	1,806
Journals	5,748	5,748
External links	5,700	5,700
Total	428,667	428,667

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 purge this page.

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)

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) Amended after re-election: After his first term, scholars and historians ranked Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history. (November 2024)

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:

Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias, optionally using its shortcut, WP:TRUMPRCB.
Close the thread using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, referring to this consensus item.
Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
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)

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]

Read the FAQ. Meters (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why can I reply to this “talk” but not Joe Biden’s? 152.86.241.175 (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His felony is mentioned in detail. I don't think it's necessary to add it to the first paragraph. Frankserafini87 (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It really is necessary. The first paragraph is supposed to give you basic idea of the person. Hes is a felon, but the first paragraph is intentionally making him look neutral. 2A00:20:B040:3AA9:7683:33AD:DD96:8809 (talk) 09:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's covered in the lead, so it's hard to argue it "intentionally makes him look neutral". — Czello ^(music) 09:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incitement of violence

Under the main "Public Image" section of the article there is a subheading "Incitement of violence". Would it perhaps be more neutral to have the subheading of "Alleged incitement of violence" as, to date, Trump has not been convicted in court of inciting violence. He has been accused by opponents and others of inciting violence. As far as I'm aware, the accusation of inciting violence has not been independently proven. A citation in the subsection states that according to some experts "Trump's rhetoric caused an increased incidence of hate crimes." That is the view of some experts, but not all experts. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[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]

I accept some of the points you've made and I don't seek to defend the words of Donald Trump, but the word "fight" is not always meant in the literal sense of using violence. The word "fight" can sometimes mean confront / challenge / oppose / resist. Phrases such as "fight for justice" and Rishi Sunak recently saying he would "fight for every vote" do not imply violence. Perhaps Trump did mean that the crowd on January 6, 2021 should be violent, but perhaps he did not. It's not yet been proven in court that Trump incited violence specifically on January 6, 2021.

On January 6, 2021, Trump tweeted: "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!". He also tweeted on the same day: "Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!"

Trump had earlier said a crowd should "fight" but did not explicitly say that the crowd should be violent. It's not yet proven that Trump's use of the word "fight" was specifically intended to mean for the crowd to be violent on January 6, 2021, rather than the looser sense of the word "fight" to mean confront / challenge / oppose / resist etc. As per WP:BLP all biographies of living persons should be written cautiously, but there's no mention in the article that on January 6, 2021 he tweeted for people to stay peaceful. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A politician saying "fight" is enough to accuse incitement to bias? I guess we have a lot of Editing of other politicians bios to do Jbole (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox, notability of parents

Edit removing parents, edit reverting removal. "Listed in the infobox for every other president" isn't a good argument, IMO. Trump's parents, as well as the parents of Obama, Clinton, Reagan, and Carter, are not notable in their own right. They got Wikipedia pages only because their son was president or, in Fred Trump's cage, because of Trump's "Apprentice" fame; it remained a stub until 2015. BTW, the parents' infoboxes list their parents, as well ... About the only recent president whose parents were notable in their own right was George W. Bush because his parents were president and first lady. Spouses, children, parents, relatives — seems a bit much. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 16:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That removal was an error that was later reversed, restoring the longstanding version, which is standard practice here (both reversal of an error and inclusion of parents). Is there some special PAG that says we should make an exception for Trump by leaving out mention of his parents from the infobox? I don't recall that notability is a requirement for infoboxes, only for article creation. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly care, either way, just seems like overkill. How do you figure that the removal was an error, and what's a PAG? Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 18:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with the last first. PAG = WP:PAG.

I don't have any huge burden about this either. I just noticed that the edit summary seemed to be wrong, IOW an "error". I assumed that when @Nikkimaria: wrote "rv duplicate", they were talking about a duplicate of that information in the infobox. I looked and didn't see a duplicate there. Their edit actually completely removed all mention of the parents from the infobox.

I don't know of any consensus saying we are not allowed to use that parameter in the infobox. We seem to have different practices for different presidents. Although this is an "other things" argument, sometimes we should standardize things, so I believe we need a sitewide consensus on this question. Can you shed more light on this situation? I'm totally open to learning more. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that "duplicate" referred to the links we have in the "Early life" section. I think this is a content discussion that should be left up to the editors of any given page. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 19:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that's what was meant, it wasn't clear to me. I would agree that content in the body and lead of an article is a matter for local consensus. I don't think the same about infoboxes, since they are used everywhere. There should be firm guidelines for them that apply everywhere. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Space4T, it's overkill and redundant to include |parents= when the family link is already present, per exclude unnecessary content. The addition should be re-reverted. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No content opinion. Process analysis:

On 17 July, editor Keivan.f boldly added the parent links.[1]
Twenty-one minutes later, Nikkimaria challenged Keivan.f's edit by reversion.[2]
Admin NeilN's suggested range for de facto consensus is 4–6 weeks. No other "authority figure" has suggested anything different, and we have historically subscribed to that suggestion at this article.
The parent links had been absent for more than 4–6 weeks, ergo the status quo ante is omission.
After Nikkimaria's challenge, no other edits should have occurred until there was a talk page consensus to change the status quo ante. No such consensus existed at the time of Keivan.f's re-revert, ergo it was a process violation and tantamount to actionable edit warring. I have reverted that process violation.[3]
No such consensus exists now, either; ergo the parent links should be omitted pending consensus to add them.
To date, Keivan.f, the editor who initiated the contested change, has not cared enough to participate in this discussion. Until and unless he does so, in my view, his position should not be included in a consensus assessment here. Edit summaries are not substitutes for discussion of contested changes.

Thank you for adhering to proper process. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His parents' names were included in the infobox for as long as I can remember. That is the status quo and there has been no solid consensus to have them removed. What possible justification could there be for omitting their names from the infobox when 'notable' parents have been listed in the infobox for every other president? Keivan.f^Talk 16:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I trust the page history more than your memory, and for good reason. ~~Here is the article on 19 June~~ Here is the article on 5 June, six weeks before your bold edit. No parent links visible there. Unless you can show where they were added during that six weeks and remained for at least four weeks, omission is the status quo ante. What possible justification could there be for omitting their names from the infobox when 'notable' parents have been listed in the infobox for every other president? Such consistency arguments usually meet with resistance ("other stuff exists") because two situations are rarely exactly the same. That's why our editors are humans, not robots. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC) Edited 01:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, so their names were sitting there for years and just because somebody removed them and nobody opposed it for six weeks that is the status quo now! I don't want to go into much details but given that Nikkimaria was one of the architects behind removing the names of Napoleon's parents from his infobox I didn't expect anything different from her here either. I have yet to see what the majority of people think here. Keivan.f^Talk 16:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so their names were sitting there for years and just because somebody removed them and nobody opposed it for six weeks that is the status quo now! Yes, that's exactly the definition of de facto consensus. I think you're catching on.

And it was longer than six weeks; how much longer I lack the motivation to research. Could be six months for all we know. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't mean it can't be challenged.

It was March 25 and it was Nikkimaria who removed them. And it was her who reverted my recent edit so I guess now she has the opportunity to clarify because that information is not duplicated elsewhere in the infobox. Keivan.f^Talk 16:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't mean it can't be challenged. Nobody ever said it couldn't be challenged. You were fine until your re-revert absent consensus for change. It was March 25 - Thanks for the research. That makes 16.2 weeks of de facto consensus, well over the minimum. she has the opportunity to clarify because that information is not duplicated elsewhere in the infobox. I think most of us understand that she (do we know they are a she?) considers the parent links redundant with the relatives link. She merely prefers the word "duplicate" to convey that. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I look forward to seeing their input here regardless. Because based on their logic, the "spouse" and "children" parameters could be considered redundant as well, since Family of Donald Trump covers pretty much all his relations. Keivan.f^Talk 16:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad point. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's one difference. The parents are closed chapters, being dead, while two of the spouses and the children are still out there on Fox, Newsmax, various right-wing podcasts, etc. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 20:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean obviously people don't live forever. That's no reason to delist them from the infobox. Based on this argument the name of his first wife should also be removed since she's been dead for two years. Keivan.f^Talk 23:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to removing children and/or spouses on the same basis, though I can see Space4T's argument for keeping them. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I prefer an all or none approach. I see no point in removing the parents but then keeping the wives and children there or vice versa. Whether they are living or dead cannot really be used as a factor in making the final decision either IMO. A dead person can still be a notable person. Keivan.f^Talk 13:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, two differences. Everybody has two parents, but most (many? - haven't looked at any stats) men don't have serial spouses. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but given the divorce rates I'm pretty sure we have several men (and women) who have gone through multiple spouses (not that there's anything wrong with it). Regardless, if one's immediate family (spouse, children, parents) are notable they can be listed in the infobox, which is why we have those parameters in the first place. But given that we have an entire article dedicated to Trump's family it can also be argued that there is no need to directly list any of them (see Jane Austen for example). Ultimately a consensus has to be reached. Keivan.f^Talk 13:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read this section: User talk:Valjean#Your revert -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really related to our argument here. I think Trump's parents are far more notable (known) than Melania's dad on whom we don't even have an article, but we still have her mom named in the infobox. Keivan.f^Talk 23:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it a serious flaw in the system that status quo can be maintained by simply going silent when good points are made by the minority opposition. It may not be bad faith, but it's close to it and the effect is the same. Meanwhile, there's no workable alternative, no practical "rule" that could prevent it. (Thus it's less a flaw in the system than in the people using it. We all need to work at being more open to being swayed, including yours truly.) We've had more than a few RfCs over less significant things than this; maybe that will be appropriate here and I wouldn't oppose one. The numbers would increase, at least. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Boy, do I ever feel sorry I started this discussion. WTH was I thinking, and it's been only three days? Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a good place to note the differences between de facto consensus and talk page consensus.

De facto consensus may be challenged by bold edit, as in this case. If the bold edit is challenged by reversion, a discussion is required and no further edits occur until there is a consensus for change. Status quo ante (minimum 4–6 weeks) determines (1) what will be in the article while discussion is underway and (2) what will remain in the article in the event of "no consensus" on the talk page.
Talk page consensus may not be challenged by bold edit; it requires prior talk page consensus to change. No edits occur during the discussion. A consensus list item is not required (but one does strongly imply that editors accept that the discussion in fact yielded a consensus; absent closure, that may not be readily apparent otherwise). Status quo ante is not in play.

This is at this article, at least, per its history since about 2015. Absent clear and unambiguous WP policy, other articles may vary and "correct" process often depends on who's around at the time. The result is a lot of time spent debating process (with or without related edit warring) instead of debating article content. Our way is better. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Residence in the infobox

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

Biographies
Politics, government, and law

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

How should we format the infobox's "residence" parameter?

|residence=Mar-a-Lago, Palm Beach, Florida (current formatting)
|residence=Palm Beach, Florida
|residence=Mar-a-Lago

--Thedarkknightli (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey: Residence in the infobox

B. --Thedarkknightli (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slightly conflicted; both have their benefits. Mar-a-Lago is specific (good) and has an article on his residence (good), but that plus "Palm Beach, Florida" is long (undesirable). Mar-a-Lago alone doesn't indicate where in the country he lives (undesirable); Palm Beach, Florida does that, but misses the specific Mar-a-Lago name and specificity. A? But with a line break? On the other hand entirely, Template:Infobox officeholder says neither are appropriate, though: Where this person lives. Only use for residences that come with the office. NOT for towns, cities, states, countries, etc. Obama does not use this parameter, and Biden has the White House. In keeping with consistency and documentation, it should be removed. But I'm on the side of including it because it can be useful for a wide array of biographies, not just here. SWinxy (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A – we have an article on Mar-a-Lago, which is enough for me. Template:Infobox officeholder is really weird about this, since Trump is a one-time politician. We aren't going to add another infobox just to include his place of residence, and I think it's important info. Cessaune [talk] 22:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A per Cessaune R. G. Checkers^talk 01:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A: sums up where he lives.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A: I'd rule out B entirely since that gives no mention of his (well known) residence. C is more specific but no immediate information on where Mar-a-Lago is. So I'm teetering towards keeping status quo. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 00:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A works.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Important to mention the specific residence (Mar-A-Lago) given its considerable coverage. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 21:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
C as per the template docs which states "Only use for residences that come with the office. NOT for towns, cities, states, countries, etc." Lordseriouspig 03:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B over C. Not A. Saying "Mar-a-Lago, Palm Beach" seems a little redundant. We wouldn't say something like "the president lives in the White House, Washington DC", b/c everyone knows where the White House actually is. NickCT (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: Residence in the infobox

Should the infobox have the "residence" template at all? And, channeling Spock, shouldn't the infobox be changed to "person" once the officholder is no longer in office? I just noticed that Template:Infobox Biography has been a redirect to Template:Infobox person for three years now. The blank template of infobox person does not include "residence" in its listing of all parameters. And, as SWinxy pointed out, for officeholders the parameter is only to be used "for residences that come with the office. NOT for towns, cities, states, countries, etc." Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think including the officeholder infobox for people not in current office is good as it shows their historical positions (if very verbose). Infobox biography has been a redirect for ~15 years to Infobox person, and I would actually like to see that template have a residence parameter. SWinxy (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

shouldn't the infobox be changed to "person" once the officholder is no longer in office? If you're suggesting a change to long-standing sitewide practice, this is not the place. Abe Lincoln uses {{infobox officeholder}}, and he's been out of office for a minute. Not to mention dead. If dying makes a difference to you, see Obama and Clinton. Same for all other former prezzes, I strongly suspect. {{infobox current or former officeholder}} would be a tad cumbersome, no? Might as well suggest changing {{infobox person}} to {{infobox former person}} upon the subject's demise. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Spock sentence was an aside that in hindsight doesn't make any sense to me, either. Dead or alive, Lincoln, Clinton, and Obama's infoboxes don't list a residence, although Lincoln's lists his resting place. (And considering recent events, I'm self-censoring my first thought about adding a resting place that almost made it onto the keyboard.) Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 16:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [4] and appears to satisfy what you say you are looking for. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"On" is an improvement. Apparently, grazing is for sheep. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 19:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done.[5] ―Mandruss ☎ 19:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ouch. Maybe you should switch to shears if your foot hair needs trimming. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 11:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, In the article we currently have [6], "...Trump was wounded on the ear by gunfire...". Bob K31416 (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Shooter's name

Crooks's name has been added, removed, and added again. Since this article's subject is Trump, not the would-be assassin or the would-be assassination, I feel those three words don't earn their keep in this bloated article. The effect from Trump's perspective would be the same whether the name was Thomas Matthew Crooks or Albert Michael Benividez (apologies to any Albert Michael Benividez). If the attempt had been successful, it would (needless to say) have vastly more significance and that would be a different content situation. The entire section would be much longer. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could see including his name if he had been successful (or even if Trump were significantly injured), but as is I would agree that it isn't needed in this article. -- User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know George Wallace names Arthur Bremer, etc etc. Other stuff exists. Please, let's not start with the apples-and-oranges comparisons. And, please don't point to wide RS coverage without explaining why we don't need his age, hometown, and a number of other things about him that have wide RS coverage. Not to mention things not about him that have wide RS coverage. It's just a weak argument. See first two sentences at WP:VNOT. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't take a bloat argument of this caliber seriously. It's a sentence, max. We can trim somewhere else.

We include his age in the article. We include his hometown in the article. We include far more inane info—"truthful hyperbole", and whatnot—and a mention of his would-be assassin has wide RS coverage and the attacker has RS articles about him.

He's not that important, but I don't see why he's unimportant. Cessaune [talk] 22:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sentence, max. No, it's three words. Nobody is contesting the rest of the sentence. We include his age in the article. We include his hometown in the article. Trump's? I was referring to Crooks's. I don't see why he's unimportant. I'm not saying he's unimportant; I'm saying his name is not needed in this article. The name is not the person—same principle as in the perennial mass shooting victims' names debate. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't necessarily need his name. But I don't see why we shouldn't include it. It's verifiable and relevant. It's three words of bloat, I guess, but, come on. That's hardly an issue. Cessaune [talk] 22:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Difference in philosophy, again. No improvement is too small to make, particularly when it's an easy one to make. Given the extreme difficulty of the larger trims (the article's wikitext size is the same as in April 2021, and not for lack of arguing about it), we're left to the little ones. It's verifiable - See VNOT. and relevant. - How so? Does this article need to exonerate the 8 billion people in the world who didn't take a shot at Trump? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to include it just because it's verifiable, but I think it's relevant. I don't exactly know how to argue that it's relevant. I don't see a good reason to not include it, and that's the crux of my argument, which is a pretty weak argument all things considered. Cessaune [talk] 00:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okie dokie artichokie. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was too kind. When we can't articulate why something is relevant, that's generally a sign that it isn't particularly relevant. It closely approaches "I just like it" masquerading as an argument. There, that's better. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree Crooks' name should be included (and linked to his article), I don't get why we wouldn't include it. If we're trying to remove bloat, I'd get rid of, "Trump then raised his fist and mouthed "fight" three times..." I have no idea why that's added there anyways? Come to think it, that whole section needs a good updating :). Hella say hella (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since there now is an article on him, if it avoids getting merged into Attempted assassination of Donald Trump, I'd say that that is far more than sufficient to show relevancy. Cessaune [talk] 04:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd get rid of, "Trump then raised his fist and mouthed "fight" three times..." I have no idea why that's added there anyways? That's about Trump. This is an article about Trump. Crooks's name is not about Trump, it's about Crooks. I hope this aids your understanding. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I think I mixed up my articles. Hella say hella (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness. The person who shoots you is relevant to you. Yes his name should be in. R. G. Checkers^talk 04:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument for not mentioning the name. The vast majority of WP readers weren't shot by Crooks. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 15:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As long as he has an article, I can't see any valid reason why we wouldn't include a mention of his name and the corresponding link. Cessaune [talk] 11:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's this:

Over the past decade, public mass shooters have won far less notoriety as their numbers have multiplied. Even some of the deadliest killers — the ones at Robb Elementary in Uvalde, Tex., and the Route 91 Harvest festival in Las Vegas, for example — are not household names. In a single week, Crooks's name has appeared in thousands of headlines as his image spread across the globe. Peterson fears that other disillusioned fame-seekers who once would have turned to a different sort of violence may now be emboldened to attempt this kind. "It has changed the course of the political conversation. It’s having ripple effects. It's actually changing politics, and potentially the election in some way," she said. "So, if one 20-year-old kid with an AR-15 can pull that off, that is something that's scary."

Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 15:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's close to the "don't glorify the shooter by naming him" argument, often seen at articles about mass shootings. It's a righting-great-wrongs argument that I oppose, at least until MSM stops naming them in virtually every article about a shooting. Not that I don't need some help here! ―Mandruss ☎ 16:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? I did wait until it's been reported by reliable sources, one reliable source citing a forensic psychologist, at any rate. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 13:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS argument that I agree with in spirit, outside the context of Wikipedia, but most definitely not in practice here on enwiki. We are an encyclopedia, and we are not censored. We have a pretty decent article on a would-be assassin. Why would we avoid mentioning the would-be assassin's name in the article of the could-have-been assassinated person if the would-be assassin has an article? I just don't see a good justification for this. Cessaune [talk] 23:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re your last three sentences: Heard ya the first time. :D ―Mandruss ☎ 23:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a would-be assassin, he is an assassin — a man was ~~murdered~~ killed, just not the subject of this article. We at WP don't seem to be any better at censorship than the deep state or MSM are at censoring conservatives, who are complaining on CNN that the media is censoring them, what with our big, fat article on Crooks. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 13:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would-be assassin is correct. The man who died, with all due respect to him, was not assassinated. I'm not sure if "murdered" is the correct word either, but I may be wrong about that one. Hella say hella (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Shooter" and "killed" are the appropriate terms for now. We don’t know whether he was a "would-be assassin" or what his motive and intent were. He was killed 26 seconds after he fired the first shot. For all we know, his intent was a mass shooting of people presented on a platter (bleachers) with Trump as a celebrity bonus. The incident fits the FBI definition of an active shooter incident, "one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area". All we know is that they’re investigating the incident as an attempted assassination and potential domestic terrorism, and that’s what our current text says. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 11:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I probably wouldn't use "would-be assassin" in the article when shooter works fine, but it's basically universally accepted by reliable sources, and the government, that Trump was the primary target, not bonus points in a mass shooting. Hella say hella (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stands to reason. If I'm looking for a place to commit a mass shooting, I probably won't choose a place that I know will be pre-populated by highly-trained anti-shooter ninjas. Unless I'm like really stupid, and Crooks is known to have been smart before his "craniectomy procedure". Having said that, are we still on topic here, or having a friendly chat about vocabulary? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if this came across to you as if we were just having a regular ol' chat. It appears the only two options up for debate are "shooter" or his actual name. I already said yes to using his name, and provided my reason, so I'll leave it at that. Thanks. Hella say hella (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

we are not censored. WP:NOTCENSORED is often cited incorrectly, but usually by editors with less experience. Per its very first sentence, it's about content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍. Nobody seeks to omit this name because some readers might consider it objectionable or offensive. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, RIGHTGREATWRONGS violations can run afoul of NOTCENSORED simultaneously. I've heard many editors suggest that we shouldn't include something because it unnecessarily glorifies an act or a person who shouldn't be, not because it's not verifiable but because they believe the person or act shouldn't be glorified. In certain circumstances, I consider that to be an attempt to right a wrong by censoring, hence my citing of the NOTCENSORED policy.

Now, are people doing that here? Not really, but it still seems salient. Cessaune [talk] 00:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just cite RGW, as I did, and leave UNCENSORED out of it unless UNCENSORED says it can be used that way. It's more misleading than helpful imo. Much of policy is learned on article talk pages, and incoming newer editors may miss your nuance. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the perpetrator has an article, it's a valid wikilink to add for readers to click on to find more information about him. I don't see a strong case for exclusion - but I also disagree with the perpetrator having an article, per WP:BLP1E - however it survived AfD so... Count this as a begrudging opinion that it should be included so long as the individual themselves has an article. If/when his article is merged back to the article on the assassination attempt (as it should be), then his name should be removed as it will be present on that article which will remain linked. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have fun trying to assess consensus with the presence of conditional !votes—unless the margin is wide enough that it doesn't matter. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, if it makes it easier (for the closer or others), count my !vote as an unconditional support - with the one caveat (not condition) that we should revisit this consensus when the shooters page is eventually deleted as it should have been in the first AfD. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support adding name back. I still don't get why we wouldn't add it? His personal article is pretty popular, over the last week more popular than the Attempted assassination of Donald Trump article (views), why make it more difficult for readers to get the information they're obviously trying to find regarding the shooter? The bloat argument is kind of silly, considering we're only talking about three words, and while I understand not wanting to give the shooter more spotlight, that's not really our responsibility. Hella say hella (talk) 04:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support adding it back in as well. See WP:NOTCENSORED. Crooks is a relevant aspect of the assassination attempt, and his article should be linked to (without an easter egg) for readers to see additional information about him if they wish. Endwise (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The shooter" would be an egg. "The shooter", not so much. I have no problem with a piped link; I'm contesting the name, not the link. If the BLP gets merged, we can do a piped section link. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be fully certain, you only oppose the addition of the name due to a perceived lack of importance and bloat, but you're fine with a link? Cessaune [talk] 00:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds about right, although "lack of importance" could be changed to "lack of relevance in Trump's top-level bio article". It's not uncommon to make a distinction between the text and a link. I have no problem with making it easy for readers to access the shooter's details from here. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're probably wondering how it reduces bloat to hide the name in a piped link. I would be, too. I referred to wikitext size (aka file size), but only because that's the easiest metric to track over time (I still have the script that plots it on a graph). But it's mainly the rendered article that I'm talking about. And bloat is not my main argument; I'd be rolling my eyes too. My approach to ATP argument: "Every litter bit helps." ―Mandruss ☎ 03:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Endwise: I've gone ahead and added the piped link.[7] Does this alter your position as to the name? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the worst solution I suppose. Endwise (talk) 11:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTCENSORED. I did, and it's about content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍. Hardly applies here. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some people in this thread were saying that including his name is objectionable because it glorifies him/increases his notoriety. Endwise (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't yet see a hugely compelling reason to rush into adding the name as of yet. He was registered as a Republican, but apparently donated to a liberal turnout group in 2022. Authorities said his political views are uknown, and they have not determined whether his assassination attempt was politically motivated or if there is a more personal connection somehow. There seems to be no other connection to Trump other than being "the shooter", but more details may reveal themselves given time. DN (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Means and opportunity in search of a motive — have gun, won't travel. He made the $15 donation to the "Progressive Turnout Project" PAC on January 20, 2021. In September 2021 he turned 18 and registered as a Republican. Kind of put a spanner in the blame game works. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 13:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If editors keep up the clear and blatant misapplication of policy such as WP:NOTCENSORED, an uninvolved, experienced closer will be required and I would expect them to discount those !votes. I will not accept a democratic vote under those circumstances, nor should anybody. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic about "democratic vote". Ok to continue within the collapse. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Democratic vote" often refers to polling without discussion or argument, as at WP:NOTAVOTE. I'm perhaps abusing the term, but I'm referring to the very common situation where every not-vote counts the same regardless of strength of argument. "It's relevant" counts for as much as "It's relevant, and here's why" followed by articulate reasoning that is not completely incoherent. Absent competent uninvolved closure, there is no way to discard the former !vote or reduce its weight in a consensus assessment.

Incorrect citation of a PAG counts for as much as correct citation of a PAG; all we need do is link a shortcut, any shortcut will do—and besides, PAGs are so complex, vague, nuanced, and self-contradictory as to make it often virtually impossible for the average editor to know what's correct application of them.

A bad argument can be "effectively" countered all day long by any number of editors, but if the bad argument editor doesn't concede there's nothing that can be done; their !vote still counts as much as anybody's. There is not even anything that requires them to stick around to read the counters.

Editors are sometimes swayed by opposing argument, but it's rare: the human mind is not designed to be changed—and many editors see being swayed as an admission that they were initially Wrong, meaning they must be Stupid or Incompetent.

This looks like constructive discussion, and boy do many of us love it for the mental stimulation/exercise, but in terms of the outcome it might as well be polling sans argument; in effect, it's democratic voting. This fairly describes virtually all discussions that are not closed by experienced, uninvolved editors who are not afraid to close against the numerical majority where needed. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In any article, a reason for including information must be established. The fact that information can be mentioned briefly is unimportant. A good test is whether mentioning someone's name helps readers to understand the story. If the attacker had been a prominent person or someone known to Trump, then mentioning their name might be helpful. I would exclude someone whose only signficance is that the tried to kill him.

We should also consider news article about Trump. Do articles that mention the attack (not articles about the attack) routinely mention the attacker's name? For example, an article in al jazeera about the Israeli PM's visit to Washington mentions that Trump recently survived an assassinatiom attempt, but does not name the attacker.[8]

If readers are interested in the assassination attempt,they can follow the link to the relevant article. But the main article on Trump should only contain information meets weight for him.

TFD (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Process: Shooter's name

As I indicated at the start, the name has been added, removed, and added again. I think this should have come to talk before being added again; I don't know that it makes a difference that the adder and the re-adder were different editors.

Neither inclusion nor omission enjoys de facto consensus status, since neither has lasted for 4–6 weeks (or even close to that). So we invoke WP:ONUS: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." It's widely accepted that, for contested new content, "no consensus" means omit.

I read the discussion as 3–3. With neither side having a clear policy basis, and absent an uninvolved closer, this is effectively a democratic vote (like many similar discussions). Obviously, 3–3 is not close to a consensus for inclusion. Include: Cessaune, Hella say hella, R. G. Checkers. Omit: Mandruss, Khajidha, Space4Time3Continuum2x. I'm excluding the adder and the re-adder from this count, since one should participate in discussion to be counted. Otherwise they don't have the opportunity to be swayed by opposing arguments. (I would view notifying them, if done by one of the includers, as canvassing; please don't. They'll probably see my edit anyway.)

Therefore I'm removing the name pending consensus to include it. We could debate what should constitute a consensus to include, but I personally would not be inclined to accept a margin of less than 2. I consider that reasonable, maybe even generous.

Wikilawyering? Moi?? Non! ―Mandruss ☎ 03:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct

For the second time within less than two weeks, "misogyny" was removed from the heading of the subsection.

July 14: edit with editsum "unsourced"
Reverted July 14 with editsum Discuss removal of part of longstanding heading on Talk page. Unsourced? 11 sources describing Trump's misogynistic behavior. Misogyny: hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women; something (such as speech or behavior) that reflects and fosters misogyny.
July 22: without editsum.

Question: Is misogyny supported by the cited (or other) sources? Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IDK/IDC, but see related current consensus item 51. Lead summarizes body. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to use "misogyny" in the heading, "misogyny" should appear in the section and supported by use of "misogyny" in the corresponding source, which currently isn't the case. Otherwise it looks like OR. Bob K31416 (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is now. The quote I added to the first sentence is from the first cite we had in the section all along. I added a few more cites that use the word mysogyny; other cites that don't use the word still describe mysogynistic behavior. And the Mayor of London prepared a comprehensive list of what misogyny is, so I don't have to explain it. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 14:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic about article bias. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How wikipedia dogs president Trump. We don't like it. List the facts. We don't care about your opinions 104.230.3.104 (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are not ours, they are the opinions of third party sources. If you have an issue with what they say, get onto them. Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Images

Current images are not representative of the individuals current appearance. They possible (likely) have been provided by the individual or his representatives. They should be replaced with images available in the public domain which are representative of his current age and appearance. 47.154.123.149 (talk) 02:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't know about all that, but this is a biography of Trump's entire life, not a snapshot of his life today. There is absolutely no rationale for limiting the article to more recent images. Actually I wish we had more older photos, especially pre-2014.

If he wins the election, his infobox image (at the top of the article) will be replaced with the new official White House photo, aging him eight years with one edit. That should make you happy, although I'm guessing his re-election won't. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion notification: Trump wall

The Trump wall article has been NPOV tagged. The term Trump's wall was coined by Joe Biden and is not the official name for the wall. Comments to MOVE or MERGE this article with the Mexico–United States border wall article are welcomed and can be made here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need an explicit consensus for process?

I'm copying my following words from an earlier discussion still on the page. I posted them on 21 July and there has been no reply to date.

This may be a good place to note the differences between de facto consensus and talk page consensus.
De facto consensus may be challenged by bold edit, as in this case. If the bold edit is challenged by reversion, a discussion is required and no further edits occur until there is a consensus for change. Status quo ante (minimum 4–6 weeks) determines (1) what will be in the article while discussion is underway and (2) what will remain in the article in the event of "no consensus" on the talk page.

Talk page consensus may not be challenged by bold edit; it requires prior talk page consensus to change. No edits occur during the discussion. A consensus list item is not required (but one does strongly imply that editors accept that the discussion in fact yielded a consensus; absent closure, that may not be readily apparent otherwise). Status quo ante is not in play.
This is at this article, at least, per its history since about 2015. Absent clear and unambiguous WP policy, other articles may vary and "correct" process often depends on who's around at the time. The result is a lot of time spent debating process (with or without related edit warring) instead of debating article content. Our way is better.

I perceive wide acceptance of the above at this article, or at least tolerance. Enforcement of these principles has not been successfully challenged in recent memory, even as enforcement has become more frequent. It's like there is an unstated local consensus for them, existing only in editors' minds. I see nothing improper about this from a policy standpoint, and it has not been challenged at ArbCom. But there remains a continuous trickle of editors who aren't aware, effectively requiring the very "debating of process" that the above seeks to prevent. We saw this recently here, for just one example.

What do editors think about formalizing this kind of thing in a consensus list item? I'm imagining a new subpage of this page, outlining what we accept as "proper" process at this article. The above text would be a good start. That done, we could simply point to the list item, which would link to the subpage, similar to what we've done with consensus 61 with good results. Needless to say, that consensus could change.

If we're already doing it, I don't see anything improper about committing it to writing. That would actually be more transparent. Yes, as far as I'm concerned, we can establish "local policy" when the community policy is unhelpfully vague and unnecessarily complex. Dissenters could take it to ArbCom. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do anything here that directly contradicts community policy/accepted practice. For example, we didn't invent the concepts of de facto consensus and status quo ante, or the principle that a disputed edit requires talk page consensus. What we do is change it from a suggestion to a requirement (and define "de facto consensus" as 4–6 weeks, eliminating argument about that, etc). Wikipedia really hates bright lines—with a precious few exceptions, volunteer editors must never be told they "must" do something—but that doesn't work very well in the CT world.

We could take the hundreds of thousands of words of the community's editing process policy and distill them into a single page comprising less than one thousand words, and I believe we should do so. (The "good start" above is 136 words, so we're probably talking about less than 500.) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot invent a "local policy". If you think community policy is "unhelpfully vague and unnecessarily complex", sofixit. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot invent a "local policy". If we have a consensus to do so, we can unless ArbCom says we can't. Your dissenting !vote is noted.^[a] As I've indicated, the unstated "local policy" already exists with wide support. I'm merely proposing we write it down for the sake of efficiency, clarity, and transparency. Editors who are unfamiliar could spend five minutes reading the subpage and learn things the easy way instead of the hard way, making work on this article a lot less unpleasant.sofixit Ok, I'll go distill the hundreds of thousands of words of the community's editing process policy into a single page comprising less than one thousand words. Be right back. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a long and windy multi-paragraph spiel, but I've realized it can be distilled into a single sentence: I don't understand the problem we are trying to solve here. Cessaune [talk] 02:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; there are a lot of words there. Executive summary:

there remains a continuous trickle of editors who aren't aware, effectively requiring the very "debating of process" that the above seeks to prevent. Read a substantial amount of time spent debating process, completely avoidable. Same as with consensus 61, which has saved us the substantial amount of time we used to spend trying to educate readers about Wikipedia content policy (while doing a pretty poor job of it). You may not notice the saving, but I think about it every time I close per 61. Also avoidable conflict and bad feelings.
Editors who are unfamiliar could spend five minutes reading the subpage and learn things the easy way instead of the hard way, making work on this article a lot less unpleasant.

I think that pretty much covers it. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, #61 is amazing (despite my ongoing objections to the way it handles things).

What does this theoretical essay do that the consensus list doesn't already? Cessaune [talk] 03:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

? The consensus list doesn't already list consensuses about article editing process. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it could, and that's my point. We'd be creating something that only experienced editors would read. The vast majority of people, in my estimation, would do a surface-level skim if that. If we just codified these things in the consensus list, we could just point to item 68 and 69, for example. Cessaune [talk] 03:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. So you're breaking down the subpage content into individual elements small enough to be codified in consensus list items. That would work, too. It might even work better, imagining what my single list item would look like after years of amendments to the subpage. Thanks for the suggestion. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, we are veering into iffy territory here. I wouldn't be surprised if such an attempt heads to AN. And, for some reason, I don't think they'll be as accepting as they've been in the past. We've already been warned against creating local policy, and we were able to weasel our way out of that by reasoning that we weren't creating local policy, merely documenting consensuses. Even though the consensuses in this case already exist in practice, it's the documenting of them that I think is going to doom this whole effort, which is stupid and dumb. Cessaune [talk] 14:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the worst that can happen? We get shot down. That's not a reason not to try to improve things. The potential benefits far outweigh the potential risk. We should learn from the success of the consensus list itself, the result of editors unafraid to be different. it's the documenting of them that I think is going to doom this whole effort That goes to the aforementioned transparency. I'm not one for trying to hide what we do here. Maybe I should be more politically shrewd, avoiding drawing attention to things I know the community might shoot down. Trump would approve. this whole effort, which is stupid and dumb. This effort is stupid and dumb? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that we would get shut down is stupid and dumb.

The worst that could happen, which I think is a very real possibility, is that we get banned from creating local policy and from enforcing local policy, regardless of if said policy has been codified or not. Cessaune [talk] 01:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even a local policy, just a clarification of how to apply WP:NOCONSENSUS in an article that is sometimes edited dozens of times within a few hours by editors with widely different "WP skills". We define "existing consensus" as content that has been unchanged 4–6 weeks prior to the proposal or bold edit.

When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.

Do we want to interpret "prior to the proposal or bold edit" as the first, second, third, nth of several additions/modifications/removals done within a short time span? And, if so, how long or short a time span — minutes, hours, days? Took me a while to understand the guiding principle but, yeah, 4–6 weeks is the reasonable compromise mentioned in the first sentence of WP:CON if we want to avoid endless edit-warring on this page. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 14:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a hardline 'you can't do this' or 'you have to do it this way' is creating local policy. For example, if edits are expressly disallowed during the course of a discussion, that is creating a local policy. And, in this case, I'd imagine that such measures would be far more rigorously enforced than the wording of most PAGs allow for ('you can't edit per consensus #68' as opposed to 'you shouldn't edit per WP:BRD' or something), which many will take issue with in my estimation. We'd be creating something with the power of an ArbCom remedy. Cessaune [talk] 14:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would ArbCom see the need for remedies if local editors have already come up with workable solutions? They don't remedy nonexistent problems. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If our local rules do substantially more good than harm, that's the definition of an IAR situation.

Wikipedia editing is not about blind and rigid adherence to rules.
Thinking outside the box is not, in fact, a sin.

Folks need to stop throwing around slogans like "you can't create local policy", and start explaining why that's an actual problem—a problem at this article, specific to this situation, in real-life, practical, down-to-earth terms, not in vague theoretical ivory-tower generalities.

I don't honk at people when they merely commit a traffic infraction near me; that's just being an anal-retentive dick. Rather, I honk at them when they cause a significant problem near me. Meanwhile, I don't hesitate to commit a traffic infraction to avoid creating a significant problem, and they are free to honk all they want; too effing bad. My focus is on problems, not rules. This is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. I think I'm channeling Jimbo Wales; if not, I think he would support me on this. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can't create local policy because well-meaning, established editors and admin won't want us to, if previous run ins with AN are any indication. I think this is both stupid and extremely salient. The reason why it's a problem will differ from editor to editor, but the consensus will be against such measures. I am fully confident of this.

I also generally dislike the idea of hard-and-fast rules. It goes against my own personal philosophy and the way Wikipedia is supposed to work in my mind. Cessaune [talk] 02:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, or they might surprise you for once. If the former, I want people on record violating one of WP's most fundamental principles. It won't age well. There's no doubt plenty of record of asininity (that a word?), but not so much of people violating the IAR principle. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, there are valid, policy-based reasons why someone would oppose such measures that are both related to the process behind the rules' existence and the proposed rules themselves. WP:LOCALCON comes to mind. Cessaune [talk] 02:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ As far as I'm aware, not even 19 years and 223 Kedits earn one veto power around here. I could be mistaken, but I don't think so.

De facto consensus

Pursuant to the preceding thread, I'm seeking a consensus for the following local process rule.

If something has existed or not existed in the article for at least 4–6 weeks, that inclusion or omission has "de facto consensus" status. De facto consensus may be challenged by bold edit. If the bold edit is challenged by reversion, a discussion is required and no further edits occur until there is a consensus for change. "Status quo ante" refers to the article state prior to the bold edit; it determines (1) what will be in the article while discussion is underway and (2) what will remain in the article in the event of "no consensus" on the talk page.

Support as proposer. Merely codifies what we already do at this article, and have done for at least a few years. We should consider altering 4–6 weeks to a single hard number, lest we have disputes over situations in the middle of that range. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not happening per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Update WP:CON first then we'll talk. This article is not special. VQuakr (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please link the community consensus that is inconsistent/incompatible with this rule, something specific to de facto consensus and status quo ante. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONUS, which is policy, notes the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material and conflicts with this "de facto consensus" proposal. Silence after a bold edit results in presumed consensus not de facto consensus per WP:CON, which is also policy that conflicts with this proposal. We don't need to say De facto consensus may be challenged by bold edit. since that's already covered by and in agreement with WP:BOLD. So while harmless, that sentence adds nothing to the proposal. Something having "not existed" in an article is a bizarre criterion since nothing exists until it is added so silence on something that doesn't exist isn't an indicator of any modicum of consensus. While I agree that "at least 4-6 weeks" is mathematically equivalent to "at least 4 weeks", that issue is null since this proposal is a nonstarter. Practically speaking, I also don't see it solving the problem it's intended to solve. We're already covered by WP:CTOP and I don't see any procedure that we actually would be allowed to adopt through article talk page discussion substantially improving on that. VQuakr (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Article content should be a matter of opinion and subject to consensus on a case-by-case basis. Process should ~~not be either~~ be neither. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC) Edited for clarity 23:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There might be a missing word above but if I'm understanding you correctly: if you disagree with WP:LOCALCONSENSUS you should discuss that there not here. VQuakr (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do have some issues with LOCALCONSENSUS, but that's irrelevant since this does not violate it in my view. I'm merely saying that the less time we spend arguing about process, the more time we have to argue about content. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably the irony of voicing this viewpoint in a process-oriented thread created by yourself is not lost on you. This proposal is obviously in conflict with LOCALCONSENSUS regardless of your view. VQuakr (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Said irony is lost on me. This is a one-time process argument for the purpose of avoiding years of continuous process argument—an investment with an expected high ROI—which is apparently lost on you. Thank you for your !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Said irony is lost on me. Apparently. Avoiding years of continuous process argument this proposal, even if it had a snowball's chance of ratification, would certainly not accomplish that. What can accomplish that is to focus your own replies on content rather than claiming there is some enforceable special process in place at this talk page that amplifies the significance of a month's silence. VQuakr (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely it would accomplish that. The process disagreement at Talk:Donald Trump#Infobox, notability of parents, for example, would have been replaced by "See current consensus 68". And that example is probably atypical as the other editor (Keivan.f) was more reasonable/flexible than most; the debate could have continued for much longer. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's your best example?? In that thread you are arguing process, citing a process that doesn't exist. That is an example of a content discussion that was turned into a process argument by you (ok, the OP had a bit of a process slant but your reply was exclusively process-oriented). That could be avoided by you not doing that. That would have a positive ROI. VQuakr (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I stated it was not my best example. It's an example sufficient to illustrate the point. I honestly don't get your apparent argument that process is unimportant in dispute resolution, but I guess our brains are built differently. Me, I'm a longtime subscriber to WP:PII. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already said what point it actually illustrates, and your characterization of my reasoning is completely inaccurate. I am opposed to arguing about process in the wrong venue. VQuakr (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So we should have taken that process discussion, and all others like it past and future, to Village Pump or something? I think not. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the process discussion wasn't necessary at all and shouldn't have been had anywhere. Quit the straw men, please. VQuakr (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No straw man, I'm genuinely struggling to understand your position. Wikipedia editing is metaphorically a game, and every game needs rules that are clear and simple enough for mere humans (i.e., average editors) to understand; else as much time is spent debating the rules as playing the game. I'd ask this question: Where was your objection when that discussion was underway? Not to mention the many that preceded it? For that matter, not that I expect you to know, where was anybody's objection? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I could object now because [9] was indeed an obnoxious distraction from the content discussion, but I think looking forward is more productive. Hopefully my feedback here will drive you to consider whether the behavior should be repeated. And there is in fact (well deserved) complaint about these antics later in that discussion. Our "rules" are our relevant PAGs; if you believe them deficient then that problem exists everywhere and should be addressed centrally. To repeat my original comment, this article is not special. VQuakr (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well the behavior will be repeated until you or someone else shows us an alternative way that works well in actual practice. And there is in fact (well deserved) complaint about these antics later in that discussion. A complaint which failed and was not taken to a higher power such as AN or AE. this article is not special is an argument against the consensus list, which has more than proven its value (and has been recently upheld at AN). ―Mandruss ☎ 21:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you seem to be unable to stop mischaracterizing my reasoning, I don't think further replies here are productive. Hopefully someone will come by and archive these two sections shortly. VQuakr (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think further replies here are productive. Works for me. Hopefully someone will come by and archive these two sections shortly. They had better be an admin or we're going to have a serious problem. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Re no further edits occur until there is a consensus for change: I'm always annoyed when I see an article changed because a discussion is leaning in one direction (in one editor's subjective opinion, usually an editor who supports said change). What, are we to change the article back when the discussion leans in the other direction? Is this tennis? How is that constructive? This is inconsistent with any concept of orderly process. And what's the hurry? There is no deadline. There is nothing wrong with codifying principles like this if a majority of an article's editors agree.
Then there are edits-during-discussion that are merely substitutes for discussion. "Here's my !vote in an edit summary", if they even go as far as to write a meaningful edit summary. That's pure disruptive editing in my view, and their edit summary !vote will not be found in the archived discussion containing the consensus if any. Absent explicit WP policy to that effect, a local consensus would be very helpful. Simply relying on WP:DE is not a solution, since that forces us to spend time discussing whether the edit in fact violates DE. In essence that means establishing a consensus "local" to that single case. And it has to be repeated, quite redundantly, for each such case, forever. Or, we can choose to live with the disruption and the incomplete archive. Avoiding those two bad options is the whole point.
But this rule should not preclude an edit like this one, which arose during the discussion and was an effort to facilitate consensus. Using that situation as an example, the rule should preclude only adding the shooter's name in visible prose while discussion was underway. We probably need to adjust the language to make this distinction, but I'm not sure how to do that in a clear and simple way. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If there is no consensus to include, we shouldn't include per WP:NOCON, WP:BLP and the idea behind WP:CTOP. I also disagree with the idea of effectively banning WP:Bold-refine, per both my own personal philosophy and a few discussions, most notably this discussion and the subsequent RFC, where bold-refine was used extensively to create a better article IMO. Cessaune [talk] 01:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you think this is an up-or-down vote on that exact text. How about helping improve it instead of helping kill it before it has a chance to be improved? Isn't that how it's supposed to work? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start with my objections, then. What do you think of my points? Cessaune [talk] 07:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you think this is an up-or-down vote on that exact text. Yes one would think that, since that is what you asked for in the first sentence of this thread. This proposal is DOA and a waste of time. VQuakr (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most experienced editors don't take that so literally, knowing that consensus often requires adjustment to a proposal (aka collaboration). However, an experienced editor might choose to take it so literally if doing so provides an opportunity to take a cheap shot at the proposer.
Your tone/battleground mentality in this thread has not been welcome (repeatedly accusing me of mischaracterizing your comments when I was having trouble understanding them, accusing me of creating straw men, etc).
"Said irony is lost on me. Apparently."[10] No, it wasn't "apparent", it was explicitly stated by me, as you quoted. That was pure unhelpful, unnecessary snark.
Please waste no more of your time here. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion has been noted, and you have !voted. In a sincere way, I would ask you to kindly disengage from this thread as to let it waste as little of your valuable Wikipedia time as possible. I personally think that these discussions are very, very important, and you are welcome to disagree, of course.

If you have anything to add that will generate productive discussion, say it. But your tone isn't conducive to a productive environment. Cessaune [talk] 16:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Maybe the problem is insufficient granularity?
68. The article is not changed during discussion merely because the discussion is perceived to be leaning in one direction.
69. "De facto consensus" is implied when there has been no change in [x] weeks.
70. Editing during discussion is not a substitute for discussion.
70 may be more problematic than 68 and 69; I'm just illustrating the point. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are sufficiently vague as to be consensus #58 all over again. Cessaune [talk] 20:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Edit 1 summary: "Discussion is leaning in this direction." Edit 2 summary: "rv per current consensus 68". What's vague about that? Seems very straightforward to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's one of many potential cases. Edit 1 summary: "Bold-refining this paragraph." Edit 2 summary: "rv per consensus item #68." New process discussion within the content discussion is created, editor time is used up, etc. Cessaune [talk] 20:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit 1 summary: "Bold-refining this paragraph." Edit 2 summary: "rv per consensus item #68." Edit 3 summary: "rv: please read a consensus item before you cite it in a reversion." ―Mandruss ☎ 18:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you meant consensus 70? If so, I already said that might be more problematic. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tone

This page/entry is written with a purposeful, negatively-biased tone. One that is seemingly meant to stir up frenzied opposition. The same can be said about many of the Main Articles linked within the entry. This and other said entries were clearly written and edited with such a negative bias in mind. ChonokisFigueroa (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since this one is about tone—not about what the article says, per se, but about how it says it—I'm choosing not to close per current consensus item 61. Other editors are free to disagree. But it's at least worth pointing the OP to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see you suggest one specific example where you would improve the tone, for illustrative purposes. Similar to #61, it's not particularly useful to speak in generalities. Please note the example and your suggested alternative language. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. I dont think its possible to eliminate the bias/tone. 95% of editors here have made there minds up on trump and are incapable of an unbiased reading of this article. Numerous people have routinely brought this very thing up, including myself. Further, they will ask for a specific instance of this bias/ negstive tone, and seemingly dont understand to fix this problem the majority of the article, which for obvious reasons is extensive, would need to be re-written. 216.175.28.83 (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No but we need to know what the issues are, so as to not repeat them, unless we know what you object to, we might well add is back. Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are never re-written in my 10 years of experience, and certainly not articles of this size. Rather, they are iteratively improved. If this article were re-written, who would do it? Obviously not the 95% of editors here [who] have made there minds up on trump and are incapable of an unbiased reading of this article. Who chooses the editors to replace us? You? A panel of members of the public? Who chooses the panel members? No Wikipedia article content is subject to popular vote, and this page is not for generalized rants. Please confine any future comments to things that stand a snowball's chance of having any effect. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~The tone is, first and foremost, gratitude for the opportunity to participate in the discussion.~~

~~(Unlike some other candidates.)~~

~~Mr. Trump shows political courage and self-confidence.~~

Doesn't throw words to the wind: "If the Russians kill just one US soldier, there will be a third world war." (I mean, do any of the Russians need to do such terrible things? By the way. The leaders of Russia are sooo sensitive and dogmatic. Challenges can cost something.)Mandruss2 (talk) 10:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)blocked for username impersonation. – robertsky (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think people need to read wp:soap and wp:or, do any RS say Trump shows more "political courage and self-confidence" than any other candidate (rather than say "arrogance and stupidity"?)? Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Mandruss2"? Mandruss1, no good deed goes unpunished. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete requested. Thanks for the heads up. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW: pointing the OP, who posted this, to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias seems like a lost cause. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 16:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt it's a lost cause in 99.9% of cases. But it must be done. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus 25: Do not add web archives to cited sources which are not dead

Is it a Consensus to create web archives to cited sources which are not dead?

98.248.161.240 (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand the question, but maybe this will help:

Consensus 25 refers to the archive-related parameters of citation templates such as {{cite web}}. These parameters are |archive-url=, |archive-date=, and |url-status=. Consensus 25 has nothing to do with the archived sources themselves at sites such as web.archive.org aka Wayback Machine. At an article that currently has 838 citations, three of which are currently for sources known to be dead, the consensus is that the archive parameters cannot be justified for live sources that may die at some point in the future (link rot). We add the archive parameters when the source is found dead, not before. For more, see the discussions linked in the consensus list item, if you haven't already. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One-time offer: Any editor who verifies the life status of the other 835 sources earns a barnstar from me. With bonus points for any sources they find dead. The honor system is in effect; you can say you did it without doing it, if a barnstar is worth more to you than your integrity. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have clarified the language in #25.[11] I've long believed the language was confusing, failing to clearly distinguish between the archived sources and the archive parameters, and this thread finally provided me the motivation to fix it. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IP user: All links added to Wikipedia are automatically archived within a few days of their addition. See WP:PLRT.

@Mandruss: There is normally no need to manually check citations for URL status, as we have multiple bots and automated systems that do that. See WP:LINKROT. Normally, manual intervention by editors is normally only required for complex cases, such as websites that have been redirected or usurped and remain live, but no longer point to the actual content of the source. Melmann 10:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then I withdraw my offer! Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NYT "Spotlight Donald Trump"

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Edit Request: to add the Spotlight Donald Trump link from NY Times, America's newspaper of record, to External links.

https://www.nytimes.com/spotlight/donald-trump

98.248.161.240 (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit requests are for uncontroversial changes. Not much at this article is uncontroversial. Therefore I'm converting this to a discussion. In the future, please use the "New section" link at the top of this page unless you're pointing out typos, obvious grammatical errors, broken links, clear violations of consensus, etc. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad proposal on its face. I logged out of NYT and clicked your link. I was able to view the "Spotlight Donald Trump" page. Then I clicked a few of its links to NYT articles, and all of them were blocked by the paywall. Therefore I'll oppose the proposal per WP:ELNO#EL6. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why, what does it tell us we do not already say? Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that this doesn't seem like a necessary addition to the list per ELNO#1 along with #6 as already noted. VQuakr (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested format change to the current consensus list

The consensus list currently has 67 entries, 14 of which (about 20%) are no longer in effect due to being cancelled, superseded, etc. I suggest that the list is more useful if these line items are removed after a suitable period of time (maybe 1 month?) from the list to an archive subpage (such as /Current consensus/Archive) that is linked from the main list. Line item numbers would not be reused. The purpose of this change would be to make the list easier to navigate via scrolling and make it take up less space on the talk page in its un-collapsed state. VQuakr (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feels like only yesterday since we had this discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 18:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link! Looks to me like that discussion died out without reaching a consensus. Please feel free to add any of the prior participants I miss: @TarnishedPath, Nintendofan885, Bob K31416, Mandruss, Melmann, Zaathras, and Shearonink: VQuakr (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing some of the differences between that proposal and this one: by using an archive subpage, we no longer have a concern about causing navigation issues on the root talk page due to length of struck items. That means that we can provide the full history of an item's adoption and removal, with links, located on an archive subpage one click away from the talk page. I believe this makes navigation of old items easier (or at least) not more difficult, than today's configuration. To be honest I struggle to think of any downsides and this seems to me to be a straightforward improvement, though I'd love to hear others' thoughts. VQuakr (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My particular suggested change was flawed for reasons pointed out by others (yourself included, if I remember correctly). However, I didn't particularly care about the method as much as I do the outcome. I still believe it would be beneficial to reduce the length of the list, by whatever means feasible. TarnishedPath^talk 09:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remain strongly opposed to any change. No point in regurgitating the same arguments I posed in the previous discussion. However, since there was no consensus in the previous, I can't claim this is a settled issue. As for I believe this makes navigation of old items easier (or at least) not more difficult, than today's configuration., well, I just disagree <shrug>. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remain strongly opposed to any change. Because this proposal is similar but not identical to the previous one, I believe it would be helpful if you would provide your reasoning. Well, I just disagree in the current configuration, to navigate to a RFC that rescinded an item there are two clicks required (unhide, click RFC). In the proposed configuration, there would be two clicks required (archive link, click RFC). Can you clarify the reasoning underlying your opinion? VQuakr (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On an internet built around clicks, its users performing hundreds or thousands of clicks per day without even thinking about it much, minimization of clicks is not my first priority—or even particularly high on my list. My real-life career was very much built around the KISS principle (with a high degree of success), so I instinctively see the world through that lens. A separate page adds a degree of complexity that I'm unable to justify. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation to obsolete decisions is a pathway I imagine to be relatively rare. The offsetting advantage is simplification of the list on the talk page to solely active remedies (which presumably are viewed more frequently), making them easier to navigate as well as easier to scroll past when navigating to other active discussions on the talk page. Put another way: we are both fans of simplicity but appear to disagree on which approach is simpler in this context. VQuakr (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

we are both fans of simplicity but appear to disagree on which approach is simpler in this context. Eliminating a click or some scrolling reduces work, not complexity. They are not the same thing. Stacking one thousand equally-sized blocks of wood is labor-intensive but simple enough for a reasonably intelligent chimpanzee to accomplish. Other thoughts:

If I'm a first-time editor here, I'm wondering "Why are there gaps in the numbering?" Then I figure it out—maybe—when I see the link at the top about the archive. Maybe it would be better if I didn't have to figure it out? And experience tells me some editors wouldn't figure it out on their own.
Our current configuration makes it clear at first glance that consensus can change here. Not quite so clear with your proposal, although, again, one could figure it out.

Generally speaking, it's good practice to design for the newbies, not for ourselves. We can easily handle things that are unnecessarily simple for us; meanwhile, newbies can't easily handle things that are unnecessarily complex for them. (Echoes of discussion about process policy?) ―Mandruss ☎ 00:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you have to scroll past [the consensus list] when navigating to other active discussions on the talk page? They're all listed in the TOC, in Vector 10 as well as Vector 22. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 14:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All this does is make things more complex for marginal, marginal benefit. With V22 being the preferred skin for most editors and readers alike, the sticky TOC essentially eliminates the need for scrolling in a lot of cases. And scrolling itself is hardly an issue: I don't remember anyone genuinely complaining about scrolling being a problem for them so much as a very minor inconvenience. Ultimately, to me such a change boils down to nothing ultimately: a little benefit, a little drawback, for such an inconsequential problem? Not worth the time IMO. Cessaune [talk] 00:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing a list of 67 entries by approximately 20% is not marginal and the suggested solution is far from burdensomely complex to implement, maintain and subsequently navigate. TarnishedPath^talk 09:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of scrolling distance, IMO I think it's marginal. That 20% is barely like an eighth of my typical scroll. Cessaune [talk] 14:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20% is signficant enough when the list takes up over a screen length. That would be 20% less time I and anyone else needs to spend scrolling with my mouse at the expense of a few extra clicks on rare occaisions. TarnishedPath^talk 06:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20% less time? What exactly do you mean? Cessaune [talk] 11:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The core question here is: is such a change marginal? Because, if it is, then I don't see any valid reason to impose it. So why don't you think its marginal? Cessaune [talk] 14:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a solution in search of a problem. We're talking about 14 items, accumulated over eight years, not dozens or a hundred. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 14:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion notice: "Enemy of the people"

Please see Talk:Enemy of the people#Donald Trump. - Altenmann >talk 17:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chatter

"Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged, racist, and misogynistic." This statement is clear opinion inserted into an otherwise factually article. Either provide sources or remove this. Wikipedia has lost a lot of trust and respect and this kind of statement is exactly why. Thecommander236 (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No not as we do not say "they are" we say " been characterized as" how have they not? Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is very well sourced later in the article. We avoid citations in the lead. — Czello ^(music) 15:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See current consensus items 30 and 51. It's a settled issue for the time being. But we appreciate your comment that the article is otherwise factually. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Chatter"? MOS:LEAD defines the lead section as the "introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents". The sentence you cited summarizes two sections, Donald Trump#Racial views, which has 30 cited sources, and Donald Trump#Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct, with 10 cited sources. Probably more to come, if Trump's performance at yesterday's Q&A at the NABJ convention is any indication. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 16:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Trump lobbied by Israeli officials

A user removed that Israeli officials lobbied Trump into recognizing "Israeli sovereignty" over the Golan Heights. [12]

I believe this information is very important to present a clear and accurate view to the reader about how this recognition happened. Please restore it. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A good example of why the piecemeal approach to article reduction doesn't work. We see the need to elaborate on or clarify content that shouldn't be there in the first place. Bad Stuff™ tends to encourage/attract more Bad Stuff. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, nobody has considered this proposed content important enough to include in Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration, and it has far more place there than in Trump's top-level biography. The word "sovereignty" is not found in that article in reference to Israel. My proposal is to remove all country-specific foreign policy from this article, referring readers to the Foreign policy article for that information. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support heavy cuts to the foreign policy section. Much of it is not very important for a Trump biography. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why that should be included. Politicians get lobbied all the time, this isn't special. TBH, I'm unsure whether this article should mention the Golan Heights at all. I don't know whether it is relevant to a biography of Trump. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's another incidence of Trump ignoring international law and American allies. In the final stage of Trump's attempt to regain the presidency, I wouldn't want to start removing any of the "highlights" of his four years in office. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 16:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again, essentially saying that readers won't read Trump subarticles or shouldn't be expected to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not. I'm saying it's important enough for Trump's record as president to get the brief mention it currently has. If anyone wants to know more, there are two links readers can follow which wouldn't be there without the seven words. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 18:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you give Trump too much credit/blame for foreign policy during his administration. It was hardly a Nixonesque situation, where the president actually has a good grasp of foreign policy, where policy starts at the top and flows downward. To a great extent, things just happened during Trump's watch and he signed some things put in front of him. At least that's my perception. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it suffices that Israel's lobbying is mentioned in United States recognition of the Golan Heights as part of Israel. It's unclear what role the lobbying played in Trump's decision, or whether it was aimed at Trump or the GOP members of Congress. According to the Jerusalem Post article you cited, the Trump administration asked Israel to keep the lobbying under wraps. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 16:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Scottish-born" mother

I added "Scottish-born" to mention of Trump's mother; it was reverted as "unimportant". Under ordinary circumstances I could argue that it is relevant, if not particularly important, and only adds two words. However, in the context of this article it seems important, as Trump has been vocal about the immigrant ancestry of political opponents, although he is the son (maternal side) and grandson (paternal side) of immigrants. While I didn't provide a source, the adjective is uncontroversial, and very easily sourced if challenged. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I almost opposed, then changed my mind. It's a basic biographical fact (Trump's parents' heritages are his heritage; that's how heritage works). And I'll take almost anything that balances the overemphasis on Trump's presidency in this article, even a little.

I don't think political considerations have any place in this, but, if you wish to make that argument, you need to show non-opinion sourcing to support said relevance. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think these would serve that role:
-https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/donald-trumps-immigrant-mother
-https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-scottish-village-scotland-mother-213882
-https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-38648877 — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 14:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The more important thing is, "Do sources about Trump's biography mention his mom was born in Scotland?"

If that answer is "no" then it is not WP:DUE information. There are tons of sources about Trump's mother, but what we need is a source focused on DJT, that mentions his mother's ancestry. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 14:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not our job to make points about people's hypocrisy. That is the job of RS. Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't include it. But if I did, it would be British-born, as Scotland isn't independent. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section arrangement

Per WP:LEAD, the lead section of an article "should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs" that summarize the article's content. Hope the editors well versed with this article arrange the lead accordingly. Rim sim (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any actual concrete suggestions on how to do that in this extremely fraught and over-debated article? If there were any article where an exception may be expected, it would be this one. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 14:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] As far as I'm aware, not even 19 years and 223 Kedits earn one veto power around here. I could be mistaken, but I don't think so.

[a]