Talk:Donald Trump

Current consensus

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

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

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

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

04. Superseded by #15

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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

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

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

07. Superseded by #35

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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

08. Superseded by unlisted consensus

Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (Dec 2016, superseded Nov 2024)

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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)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 7 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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestion for "Rigged election" etc. graphic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Suggested version including text and graph

2024 presidential campaign section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Synopsis

Synopsis:

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

Attn: Mandruss DN SPECIFICO John Bois Zaathras QuicoleJR GoodDay Space4Time3Continuum2x

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC re including chart quantifying increase in election denial rhetoric

(NY Times source: "Trump’s Pattern of Sowing Election Doubt Intensifies in 2024")
— Caption may be added to tie graphic to narrative text such as User Space4Time3Continuum2x's recently added narrative.

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

Be aware that User:Space4Time3Continuum2x helpfully added text to the "2024 presidential campaign" section: "(Trump) intensified his "heads I win; tails you cheated" rhetorical strategy, mentioning "rigged election" and "election interference" earlier and more frequently than in the 2016 and 2020 campaigns and refusing to commit to accepting the 2024 election results."source1source2. Accordingly, an image caption is probably not necessary, though one was provided in preceding discussion sections.

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

• Include. The chart visually quantifies, over eight years, the ongoing big lie election denialism that has become "a feature, not a bug, of a major political party for nearly four years". Such denialism is not only notable politically, but is biographically essential as well: election denialism has been a Trump trademark battle cry from before January 6 through the Sept 2024 debate and beyond. (more references here, by User:DN) The chart presents historical fact, and does not attempt WP:CrystalBalling. 16:58, 19 Sept 2024 Supplemental: Trump's denialism undermines the electoral foundation of democracy itself;^{a b c} that's notability. The quantitative growth over time of this lie cannot be adequately explained in text buried in a 15,800-word article; a picture is worth a thousand words. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  Is there any specific reason why the chart shouldn't specify it as "rhetoric" as opposed to it's current wording? Cheers. DN (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't understand the question. The current title is based on the NY Times source's title. Is it that you are suggesting changing "statements" (from the NY Times) to "rhetoric"? —RCraig09 (talk) 06:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• I support including the chart per RCraig09 but I'd also prefer a different title. Headlines are often not written by the authors of articles. They, as well as sub-headlines, picture captions, etc., are added by editors and often more "dramatic" than the body of the article. The Times article does say He sows doubt about the legitimacy of the election, and then begins to capitalize on that doubt by alluding to not necessarily accepting the election results — unless, of course, he wins. It then says that it's a rhetorical strategy — heads, I win; tails, you cheated that he's employed before, e.g., when The Apprentice didn't win an Emmy. Sowing takes two, the one who's throwing the seed and the fertile soil receiving it; rhetoric is only about what Trump says. (I may be overthinking this.) Editors saying that this will be irrelevant after the election is also WP:CRYSTALBALL. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  The title is (apparently) not directly pertinent to the include/exclude issue, and in any event it would help only if you could propose a particular, specific title (or axis label). —RCraig09 (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Conditional exclude unless the mention of the attempted assassination of is also mentioned. The lead can carry undue weight if 4 lead paragraphs highlight Trump's faults in office while leaving out significant contributions as well as well-covered news of the assassination attempt. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 21:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  That is not what WP means by due weight. I presume you don't mean to say that attracting gunfire is a notewothy accomplishment. SPECIFICO talk 21:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Exclude - Best to wait until after the prez election. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  Why? And why not AfD all content that refers to scheduled future events and activities? SPECIFICO talk 02:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  This chart documents an established past history of repeated advance doubt-sowing. Who eventually wins is irrelevant to the notability of this topic: in 2017 Trump formed and then dissolved an "voter fraud commission"—after he won! —RCraig09 (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• Include. Thus far, no one has been able to point to any alleged PREDICTIONS made by this graphic or the NYT article it comes from. The graphic is a clear and concise way to show the significant rise in Trump's rhetoric on sowing doubt by claiming certain elections are "rigged", which began long before he became involved in politics. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Include per points above John Bois (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Definitely include. It's clearly reliable (it's from the NYT) and it's about a very clearly notable thing Trump does. Loki (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Include - per RCraig09 and DN. The visual really helps put the volume of rhetoric into perspective. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Include, but improve labeling: The accusations of predicting the future do not make sense, and I think it's a helpful graphic to compare the increase in statements to the last elections. But, it needs to be clear that this is a cumulative graph: he did not make 400 "its rigged" statements in one day. For example, the caption could be "Cumulative graph of Trump's election statements before the 2024, 2020, and 2016 elections" Mrfoogles (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  Though the monotonically increasing data traces make it clear the values are cumulative, I have added text to the vertical axis to make that fact explicit. (You may have to Wikipedia:Bypass your cache to see the change.) —RCraig09 (talk) 05:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Exclude This seems to be a matter of opinion since there doesn't appear to be any policy reason to include or exclude. I've struck my original statement because this is covered per MOS:USEPROSE. Prose is preferred in articles because it allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context in a way that a simple list may not. It is best suited to articles because their purpose is to explain. This information is much clearer as prose than a graph that's stuck in a point in time. Furthermore, it's not even a good graph. This information would be better explained in a few sentences instead of cluttering the body with a poorly conceived graph. Nemov (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Exclude per Nemov, this can be covered in a single sentence, no need to clutter. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Clarification on opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemov (talk • contribs) 20:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

NY Times numerical analysis is not "opinion". Inclusion criteria are presented above (16:58, 19 Sept etc.). What is "not good" or "poorly conceived" about quantitative graph (from NY Times)? —RCraig09 (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC) I was speaking about this discussion which is all a matter of opinions about the usefulness of this graph. It's a bad graph. I've studied economics most of my life and it had to look it several times to understand it. There's nothing in it that can't be summed up in a couple of sentences. Nemov (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC) To repeat the point: (A) "A few sentences" can't convey quantitative extent, in timespan and in number of statements (horizontal axis and vertical axis, respectively): charts quantify information along the lines of "a picture being worth a thousand words". (B) It is settled in reliable sources (not my "opinion") that the ongoing big lie election denialism that has become "a feature, not a bug, of a major political party for nearly four years" and is thus a threat to democracy itself. (C) It is also biographically essential as well: election denialism has been a Trump trademark battle cry through the Sept 2024 debate and beyond. Sorry you had to look at a NY Times chart several times, but that's not an exclusion criterion. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC) Repeating your argument again which is your opinion also isn't inclusion criterion. Nemov (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC) Reliable sources' statements are not my "opinion". Seriously, do you disagree re either (A) or (B) or (C) above? —RCraig09 (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Exclude - Nothing seems to have changed since the last time, or the time before that. Graphs aren't needed to quantify the subject's penchant for untruthiness, just say it. Zaathras (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  It's not a static "penchant". It's a dramatically quantitatively increasing behavior. Seriously, do you not "see" that? —RCraig09 (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  Calm down, Pedantic-Pants, it was just a turn of the phrase not a dismissal of the gravity of the matter. Still no valid reason for pretty pictures in this situation. Zaathras (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Compare the NY Times-based quantitative graphic (not just the "pretty picture" you imply) with the countless pics of Trump-with-this-person and Trump-with-that-person that are presently in the article. This is a substantive quantitative chart showing, visually and not in buried text, how Trump is undermining democracy itself. How can anyone not see its notability? (First time my pants have been called pedantic.) —RCraig09 (talk) 01:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Include in prose, and I am leaning towards supporting the idea of a visual representation. Ultimately, the only way to convey that each time Trump ran for president his claims of fraud/interference/etc started both earlier and happened in greater numbers would be to include some (or all) of the data that the graph displays. An example of information the graph clearly conveys that would be difficult or impossible with only prose is that by the 4 year anniversary of Trump starting his campaign each time he had already made more false statements than in the entirety of that prior campaign. To see this in the graph, one can simply look at it - but to explain that in prose with the data would be a couple sentences minimum. Furthermore, the graph is able to clearly show that in each campaign prior to this year, while Trump didn't really "stop" at any point for good, he did "take time off" from making false statements - shown by the multiple flat segments of the lines. Again, this would be difficult to convey in prose in a concise but complete manner.
  That all said, I have a concern over whether any image based on the NYT data can be used. To summarize, there is a potential claim that the underlying data (the statements being counted) meets the threshold of originality for two reasons - the decisions made as to what terms/phrases/statements are to be counted, and how adjacent/duplicate/multiple words/phrases are counted either as one or as separate. I've started a discussion on Commons to get clarity on this issue, and if it is determined the underlying data is not copyrightable, then I will support adding a graph to this page.
  Link to Commons discussion: commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright § File:20240524 Trump groundwork for election denial.svg -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Berchanhimez: The explanation is in the third paragraph of Donald Trump#2024 presidential campaign (the proposed location of the graph): He mentioned "rigged election" and "election interference" earlier and more frequently than in the 2016 and 2020 campaigns and refused to commit to accepting the 2024 election results;[708][709] analysts for The New York Times described this as an intensification of Trump's "heads I win; tails you cheated" rhetorical strategy.[709] Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 08:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Expand text instead It's not encyclopic to emphasize this complex content with a scary (pink) picture. And how will it be kept up to date? Give additional information in text, if needed. SPECIFICO talk 02:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  The original red was along the lines of ~"Republican red" (it's the facts that are scary). Would changing to different shades of gray change your mind? Second, it's not necessary to update, as the existing facts are enough to clearly convey the trend from each election to the next. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Shades of gray would be even better. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 07:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Version 4 is uploaded, with duller less interesting colors. You may have to Wikipedia:Bypass your cache to see changes. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  @SPECIFICO: It's an illustration of the text in the section, based on the New York Times article with their interactive graph and a Reuters article: He mentioned "rigged election" and "election interference" earlier and more frequently than in the 2016 and 2020 campaigns and refused to commit to accepting the 2024 election results;[708][709] analysts for The New York Times described this as an intensification of Trump's "heads I win; tails you cheated" rhetorical strategy.[709] Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 08:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yes but the text should be longer and stronger and not only NYT. Also if we change the scale the graph can look like Trump Tower or flat like a turtle. SPECIFICO talk 08:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  FYI: I usually choose charts in 4:3 (as this one) or 16:9, to match screen shapes. Not a Deep State conspiracy. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  The scale of the vertical axis, not the illustration shape. SPECIFICO talk 14:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• Include for now (it reasonably summarizes an aspect of his biography that has received massive amounts of coverage), but with the note that we might want to revisit this after the election because depending on how it concludes, what Trump does or says in response, and how that and this gets covered as a result, the appropriate framing might reasonably change... and at the very least the graph will probably require updating at that point no matter what. I don't agree that this is a prediction or WP:CRYSTALBALL (it reflects something that has massive WP:SUSTAINED coverage over the last four years), but it's also something likely to be affected by ongoing events, so we should be ready to revisit it as needed. --Aquillion (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Nobody has explained how this can be kept updated unless NYT does so. SPECIFICO talk 01:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  If/when a new chart of this kind of rhetoric from Trump comes out, it can simply replace the old one, no? DN (talk) 02:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Updates would be "nice", but not necessary to communicate the established historical fact of Trump's intensifying attempts to undermine the credibility of the electoral system that underlies democracy. What happens in November won't change that fact. Of course, any caption or related text could be updated. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  The chart does not "communicate" anything, and it provides no explanation. WP is not a picture book for toddlers (I hope). Also, your repetitive posts here make it hard to parse any valid discussion of the proposal. SPECIFICO talk 14:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  SPECIFICO, why does it need to be updated? The data for 2016 and 2020 won't change, and the 2024 cumulative number from May won't decrease. It's definitely higher now — all those rally speeches and Truthings — but we don't have RS tallying them up yet. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 08:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Most important is that the article text about this is weak and doesn't come close to conveying the thrust of the cited source. SPECIFICO talk 10:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• Exclude - we already got one graph on Trump's lies. Two would be excessive. This can be perfectly well summed up in the prose. R. G. Checkers ^talk 05:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  That graph about Trump's falsehoods and lies during his presidency could also be summed up in the prose, but the prose would be much wordier, just as in the case of the graph proposed in this RfC. IMO, its long-term presence is an argument for inclusion of this one. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  These are not "lies" like what's referenced elsewhere. These are exhortations to subvert the election. We need to strengthen the article text first, then decide whether and how to add graphics. SPECIFICO talk 12:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  Huh? Post-presidency (2021–present), second paragraph: Trump's false claims concerning the 2020 election were commonly referred to as the "big lie" in the press and by his critics. Quoting the NYT article: Long before announcing his candidacy, Mr. Trump and his supporters had been falsely claiming that President Biden was "weaponizing" the Justice Department to target him ... baselessly and publicly cast doubt ... falsely claiming ... falsely accused etc. They're lies/falsehoods, whether he's lying about his crowd size or the election being rigged, even if one of them is more consequential. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think these rigged lies need more weight and explication in the article test. Maybe also a graph but the graph should not be used as a free-floating exclamation point for readers who already know the depth and extent of these particular lies. SPECIFICO talk 20:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Include, The graphism is well done, both in scale and in text, and convey a very relevant and specific kind of information, as relevant as other kind of statements that get defined as "lies". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinemaandpolitics (talk • contribs) 13:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Exclude Graph seems completely redundant as it can be easily succinctly summarised in prose instead. Adds clutter to an article already containing 33 images.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• Exclude - Doesn't seem super useful and prone to being out of date quickly. PackMecEng (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• Include. While it is missing June through September, the information about the election lies is far better performed pictorially than with prose. The purpose is to illustrate the lies over time starting earlier than previous elections, and increasing to a large number of lies. You could transform it into prose, but I believe to accurately represent it in text would take up more space. SWinxy (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• Exclude as this graph is relatively hard to parse and its point can be summed up in prose far better than this graph could ever. Cessaune [talk] 00:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
• Exclude The graph looks amateurish, and the information would be better expressed in prose. Some1 (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment The phrase "a picture speaks a thousand words" comes to mind. If those with criticism of the chart offered some suggestion as to how to put this into prose in such a way as to be more effective, the rest of us are all ears. DN (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  The deafening silence in response to this request demonstrates how no reasonable-length prose could convey the explosive growth of Trump's big lie as well as the NY Times chart showing a presidential candidate's literal attack on the foundation of democracy. Who could not see this is perhaps the single most important graphic in the article? —RCraig09 (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't presume as much since no one is compelled to answer, but if there is a better way to put it in prose it certainly would help with a resolution that could end the RfC. DN (talk) 03:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• Include The graph provides a clear sense of scale and proportion which mere prose could not possibly do justice. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2024

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"an assassination attempt on a u.s. president or any world leader" That's funny, I thought Donald Trump was a private citizen. Did I miss where he became president again? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  If you follow the ebbs and flows of this thread you will see suggestions and changes and more suggestions and changes till its hard to remember where it started and where its been. STC is striving to get to a clean, concise sentence that we all can agree on. Nothing wrong with that. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 18:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Buster7 then how about you make a sentence and see if everyone agees with it? They won't because everyone is suggesting something different and we're not going to get 100% of people to say yes on one thing. I wish we can end this discussion already and just add my sentence MOST people voted yes on. We're fighting over one brief sentence deep deep in the article, if it is true some of you guys just don't want the sentence because your liberal and don't want trump to look good, i can 100% guarantee this won't change the election results if trump will win or lose, and that everyone's time is just getting wasted over something 100% pointless. Anyways I'm out of here, I'm done with this discussion. If you guys wanna fight over nothing, your free to do so :) HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  Here is my one sentence as suggested. Wikipedia editors do not fight. Here is another. Wikipedia editors collaborate, converse and communicate and come to a consensus agreement. One more? Wikipedia editors are unpaid workers for our customer---the reader. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 04:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose This language. As to anything else, I do not sign blank cheques. Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support a mention of the 2nd assassination attempt in this article somewhere.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Can we add some positive things about his presidency to this article?

I’m not a fan of Trump but this article is so biased. Can we add some positive things to the first portion of this article? At least mention forcing NATO countries into paying, positive economic growth, or fairly fast economic COVID recovery compared to other first world nations, or something neutral like tax cuts or recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. There are positives and negatives to even the worst presidents, but the first portion of this article reads like something straight out of Mother Jones. Don’t pretend like Trump hasn’t done like one or two good things. C9crab (talk) 06:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? If you can share some examples, perhaps it will gain consensus to be added. DN (talk) 08:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I think I can help C9Crab a bit with an example. Currently on this talk page there's a proposed positive thing that needs help getting in the article. It was previously put in the article and reverted. It's in the talk page section Support for Trump's missile strike in Syria. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

If you want to add something "positive" to the lead, I'm not sure that recognition of Jerusalem as the capital city really fits the bill. The move was highly controversial, and widely condemned by world leaders.

What some may consider positive, others may see as negative, and vice versa. Either way, this sounds like a call for WP:FALSEBALANCE which goes against policy. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you're mistaking false balance with NPOV?

WP:FALSEBALANCE states that "Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but unaccepted theories should not be legitimized." For example, we shouldn't try to legitimize the Flat Earth conspiracy theory by giving it equal weight through comparison to widely accepted science. However, Donald Trump does not fit any criteria listed on WP:FALSEBALANCE -- he's a candidate for the presidency of the U.S who is widely disliked, but is also equally liked, based on the fact that he and Kamala Harris are basically tied in the polls. His presidency from 2017-2021 included positive and negative aspects, as with practically every presidency, and this article should reflect that in accordance with NPOV. C9crab (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

FALSEBALANCE is a part of NPOV. It leads with While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. Balancing negatives with positives to make it less negative is FALSEBALANCE. We go by WP:DUE. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

If you think Donald Trump is a “ minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim” then prepare to be amazed that 70,000,000+ people thought that Donald Trump aligned with their beliefs and voted for him in 2020. Making his article reflect both the good and bad of his presidency isn’t FALSEBALANCE, FALSEBALANCE is meant to be applied to actual “minority” or “fringe” views that go against widely refuted ideas, among those being flat earth. C9crab (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Beliefs and opinions, may or may not be DUE. DN (talk) 08:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

"Equally-liked" and "tied in the polls" are not the criteria by which we judge inclusion or exclusion of material in a Wikipedia article. If you approach this as a popularity contest, prepare to be disappointed when your suggestions for article additions go nowhere. Zaathras (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

This isn’t about a popularity contest, it’s about making an article fair and balanced in alignment with NPOV. Not sure what you’re not understanding. C9crab (talk) 07:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Trying to make Wikipedia an objective and bipartisan website is like trying to boil the ocean. Freespeech2024 (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Especially if they deny climate change. DN (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@C9crab: I will quote what another user said in a similar conversation about a request to add more positive statements to the Laura Loomer Wikipedia article.

In that discussion, Aquillion wrote: Your argument above seems to misunderstand how balance on Wikipedia works - our job is to reflect the overall tone, focus, and weight of the highest-quality sources available. If those sources are overwhelmingly negative, then a balanced lead will also be overwhelmingly negative ...

For the most part, it seems that the things that get considerable and persistent coverage by the press are also the things that will get more weight and coverage here on Wikipedia. That's what I meant when talking about false balance in a previous comment. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

1) "forcing NATO countries into paying" - this is based on Trump's own mischaracterization of how NATO is funded. The actual payments (direct funding) have always been made. What some countries are failing to do is meet the military budget targets. There is no "payment" here, it is their own investment in their national militaries. 2) "positive economic growth" - Trump assumed office in the middle of a long term economic growth cycle, he can hardly claim this as his accomplishment. 3) "fast economic COVID recovery" - ummmm, the recovery came after he left office. 4) "tax cuts" - which were heavily skewed towards the top 1% with little lasting impact on the majority of the population 5)"recognizing Jerusalem" - thereby stirring up more trouble in the Middle East. I'm still waiting on you to mention something positive. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

He didn't participate in any wars during his presidency, making it one of the only ones in US history; this should be added, it's very positive. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you serious? So who do you think nearly doubled the US forces in Afghanistan from January 2017 to January 2018? Who deployed 3000 US troops to Saudi Arabia in 2019? Etc, etc, etc. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Trump leaves office and a year later Russia invades Ukraine and starts a continuing war, and 2 1/2 years after Trump left office Hamas makes a major attack on Israel with hostage taking which starts the continuing Gaza War that is currently being picked up by Hezbolloh from Lebanon with the beginnings of another war in progress. This wasn't happening when Trump was in office. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Russia had no need to invade Ukraine when Trump was appeasing Putin. And if you want to connect October 7 to Trump not being in office, there's a tag for you. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

LOL, really? Also no, let's not mock. Russia was in occupation of Crimea (that is an invasion of Ukraine), 11 terror attacks in 2017 (alone) in Israel what peace do you want us to add? Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Here's a positive that was rejected. Trump scores a long-awaited coronavirus win with vaccines on the way Regarding the question, "Can we add some positive things about his presidency to this article?" I guess the answer is no. Bob K31416 (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I guess the answer is no. Please WP:AGF. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

AGF? This is Donald Trump we're talking about. There are no good things that came from his presidency, and that's supported by so many sources. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

One good thing came from the Trump presidency: the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022, which we can indirectly credit to Trump and his attempts to steal the election. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

No it isn't. He made 4 peace deals, no new wars, expansion of economy, illegal immigration down, etc.

Biden on the otherhand.....numerous new waes, chaos in the world, russia is winning the war in Ukraine, cultural destruction, open borders of migrants, violent crime at multi decade highs, etc. 149.62.206.91 (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

No new wars does not mean no wars, and which peace deals did he make? Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Reply to 149.62. The US crime rate has trended downward for decades, and recent data confirms this pattern. However, while the national violent crime rate decreased by 1.6% in 2022 compared to 2021, the property crime rate rose by 6.7%. Rates vary by region due to factors including urbanization levels, economic conditions, and law enforcement effectiveness. From usafacts.org--Updated on Fri, February 23, 2024 by the USAFacts Team Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 11:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I support mentioning Operation Warp Speed. Not sure why others don't, but I know it's been discussed. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

That tale does not tell anything "positive about Trump." What's positive is his unprecedented political skill - holding the GOP captive even while destroying what remained of it after the Bushes. Also, though it was not on his initiative, he continues the Republican corruption of the Federal judiciary, remarkably to his personal benefit. Most Americans may dislike those outcomes, but the are extraordinary personal achievements. SPECIFICO talk 17:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I would support mentioning it (despite the fact that his involvement was basically just signing his name) if he hadn't spent the entire time flouting the suggetions of actual doctors, hosting what amounted to spreader events, and saying mind-numbingly stupid things like the idea of putting bleach into people. You don't get to claim credit for the science when you spend so much time denigrating it. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Odd things about Operation Warp Speed were that, IIRC, Pfizer, who developed the first usable Covid vaccine, was not a part of Operation Warp Speed. And the true genius who spent decades researching the concept of mRNA vaccines, winning the Nobel Prize for doing so, was an immigrant to the US but left due to lack of funds to complete the research. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

It was branding. See Katalin Karikó (the genius O3000 mentioned), BioNTech, Pfizer–BioNTech, and "America first". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

If you have some examples, than I suppose you may add them (with consensus) in. Should Trump return to the White House on 20 January 2025. I suppose his second term, would gradually change the info in his bio. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Another positive not in the article is that the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, died in a raid by U.S. forces during Trump's presidency. From CNN,[1]

"Esper told CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday morning that the President approved the raid 'late last week' after being presented with different options. The objective, Esper said, was capturing Baghdadi or if necessary, killing him.

'He reviewed them, asked some great questions, chose the option that we thought gave us the highest probability of success and confirmation that the head of ISIS would be there and either captured and killed and then we executed from there,' Esper said."

Bob K31416 (talk) 05:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Did this change anything, was it a positive? Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, he aced the cognitive test. Man, camera, chicken, TV. SPECIFICO talk 07:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

He was "top in his class" at the Wharton School too, right? But I think that claim has been debunked. He didn't even make the Dean's List? We could at least put in the lead that he falsely claimed to be first in his class. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Jokes aside, would it make sense to mention the First Step Act? That wasn't a Trump accomplishment really, but it was something he signed. VQuakr (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I think this is the problem, people are asking for positive achievements, not just signing something. Some he actually did, worked for. Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, we could add that to Donald Trump#Social issues right after mentioning that Trump supports the use of interrogation torture methods such as waterboarding, the Trump administration executed 13 prisoners, more than in the previous 56 years combined and after a 17-year moratorium, and Trump’s anti-marijuana actions. Or not. Bipartisan bill, and after Trump signed it, his DOJ was working hard not to release people and to put parolees back in prison. For example, a former inmate was singing Trump's praises at a WH presser while Trump’s DOJ was trying to send the man back to prison. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Not in the article is Trump orders strike on Syria in response to chemical attack, which begins with,

"President Donald Trump ordered a strike on Syria Friday in response to last weekend's chemical weapons attack.

Addressing the nation Friday evening, Trump said the strike was a joint operation with France and the United Kingdom.

'A short time ago, I ordered the United States Armed Forces to launch precision strikes on targets associated with the chemical weapons capabilities of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad,' Trump said.

Trump said that the 'massacre' last weekend in Syria 'was a significant escalation in a pattern of chemical weapons use by that very terrible regime.'

'The evil and the despicable attack left mothers and fathers, infants and children thrashing in pain and gasping for air. These are not the actions of a man,' Trump said, referring to Assad. 'They are crimes of a monster instead.' "

Bob K31416 (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

If this belongs anywhere, it would be in the presidential article. But it's mostly quotes from Trump. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the missile strike is already in the article. My mistake. It's any mention of the support it got that is missing from the article whereas the article mentions criticism for Trump's other actions in Syria. See the Talk section Support for Trump's missile strike in Syria. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Just a general impression. This is an article, and it is in Wikipedia, but I don't think calling it a Wikipedia article would be appropriate. It's something else. Too much of an attack orientation. Just my opinion. And with that, I think I've spent enough time in this section. Best regards. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Are we talking about positive things or just things that have gotten support from somewhere? Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

IMO the more we talk about adding "positive things" the more it appears to look like a misinterpretation of policy. For example, it's not any editor's fault Trump chooses to promote conspiracies for his supporters who also appear to believe in them.

"When reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance." Where is the contradiction, AKA the positive perspective, among reliable sources? Wikipedia doesn't rely on sources that promote conspiracies, so in a way our hands are somewhat tied. DN (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• "forcing NATO countries into paying" is just plain wrong and demonstrates you don't know how NATO works, recognising Jerusalem as Israel's capital is highly controversial and not followed by any major ally, and tax cuts for the rich is not "neutral". Don't pretend you're being neutral point of view with rubbish like this. AusLondonder (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Religion in Donald Trump's life

Hi. I added 57 words to the thin content of the Religion section. Since these words were reverted with concern about length and mentions elsewhere in article, please discuss the added content here and the quality of the Reliable sources involved:

1. Added that his family's church was "led by Norman Vincent Peale." -- This point is made by Kelsey Dallas, an award-winning religion journalist (Deseret News), in her article, "What has Donald Trump said about religion?" (7-18-24) and elaborated by the NYT article "Overlooked Influences on Donald Trump: A Famous Minister and His Church" (9-5-16) -- 5 words
2. "During his childhood, he also went to the First Presbyterian Church in Brooklyn and donated to it in 2012." -- This church affiliation is completely missing from the article. It is supported by the Kelsey Dallas piece and this article in The Atlantic: Green, Emma (July 24, 2016). "Donald Trump Grew Up at a Church That's Now Full of Immigrants" -- 19 words
3. Added that his new identification as a non-denominational Christian is "an unusual shift in religious affiliation for a sitting president." Source: Admin, C. (October 27, 2020). "Trump Becomes the First President Since Eisenhower to Change Faiths in Office". Christianity Today. More can be said about this salient shift, of course, but here adding only -- 10 words
4. "Trump appeals to Christian nationalists, according to a 2022 study" -- This key point is missing from the article. There are numerous sources that discuss his relationship to Christian nationalism, please Google News to confirm. Here I suggest an academic paper by leading scholars: Perry, Samuel L.; Whitehead, Andrew L.; Grubbs, Joshua B. (June 2022). "The Devil That You Know: Christian Nationalism and Intent to Change One's Voting Behavior For or Against Trump in 2020". Politics and Religion. 15 (2): 229–246. doi:10.1017/S175504832100002X. p.243 -- 10 words
5. "and in March 2024 he began to sell copies of a Christian Bible." -- Not elsewhere in the article. Source: Willingham, A. J. (March 28, 2024). "Why some Christians are angry about Trump's 'God Bless the USA' Bible". CNN. -- 13 words

Religion is a major issue in Trump's personal life, especially because the personal is political for his relationship with Christian constituencies. In the current version, the word "Christian" only appears once in the article. I believe these 5 changes are written from a Neutral point of view, clearly Verified, and involve due Weight to a significant aspect of the subject's life. @Space4Time3Continuum2x, thanks in advance for comments. ProfGray (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

There is an argument for 2, 4, and 5 to be added. 1 and 3 are relatively trivial IMO. Cessaune [talk] 20:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe 1 is not trivial. The "power of positive thinking" is at the heart of Trump's philosophy. I believe it used to be in the article, but has been edited out at some point.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

1, 2, 3 are silly trivia. Ambivalent on the rest. Zaathras (talk) 01:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

4 seems more relevant. DN (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

There is too much religion material in the article. There should be something about his pandering to fundamentalist Christians , his strange messages to the Jews, and his attempts to monetize and brand himself with the Bible. Well, actually we do have the photo-op. SPECIFICO talk 01:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe the Bible is included in an article on Trump products.Jack Upland (talk) 02:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

You can now get the “The Day God Intervened” edition (custom embossed to in remembrance of the day that God intervened during President Donald J. Trump`s assassination attempt — English isn't the website's forte) of "the only Bible endorsed by" Trump, using his "name, likeness and image" under a license agreement with one of Trump's organizations, CIC Ventures LLC; $59.99, or $1,000 with President Donald J. Trump's Hand-Signed Signature. It's not a Trump-branded product, so it's mentioned in the last paragraph of The Trump Organization#Other ventures and investments. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Hi there. Based on your suggestion more content about Christians, messages to Jews, etc., it looks like a typo and that you meant to write, "There is not too much religion..." -- is that right? ProfGray (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I meant there's too much insignificant content about church etc and not enough about his use of religion in efforts to pander to various groups. SPECIFICO talk 02:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

This edit moved Trump’s Sunday school confirmation from Religion to Early Life, and this edit removed Peale. Religion is a major issue in Trump's personal life — he was and is unable to name a favorite or cite a single verse or passage from the Bible. I just moved Sunday school back into the section. I assume Sunday school was mentioned only because of contradictory Trump claims about his religion/religiosity. I can't think of any other bio mentioning it as part of early life and education, not even Mike Pence's. Was tempted to remove it but didn't because of this discussion.

• this edit in May removed Peale. The Trumps started attending Marble Collegiate Church because of Peale's fame and feel-good-about-being-rich sermons. Seems trivial to me.
• Donation to Brooklyn church: It was apparently only reported by one source, The Atlantic, at the time which also reported that As far as Patrick O’Connor, the pastor, knows, the Republican presidential nominee has never tried to visit the church where he grew up—or, at least, not in several decades. Who knows why he sent a check in 2012, and was it a personal check or a Trump Foundation check?
• Christian nationalism. There's one sentence in Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign#Campaign events: The Associated Press noted that "Trump's rallies take on the symbols, rhetoric and agenda of Christian nationalism." It's part of his rhetoric to please a subset of his supporters, so it would belong in Donald Trump#2024 presidential campaign.
• "an unusual shift in religious affiliation for a sitting president" — trivial statistic. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems like Peale was an important influence on the Donald’s life, so I would strongly urge the reinstatement of that text. Jack Upland (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi. @Space4Time3Continuum2x, Thanks for your collaborative comments and for explaining your take to each of these points, which I appreciate, plus you looked up past edits. You also moved the Sunday school thing, even though you feel that it's unimportant. Your point (higher up) about the bible is clear and well-explained, so I get that (#5). If the donation is only one RS, then I can see leaving out of this article, though it may belong in a sub-article (#2).

• On Christian nationalism (#4), or Christian right / conservatism -- you suggest a different section, that's very helpful. There are numerous RS sources on his relationship to Christian movements, e.g., Trumpism article long section. It is deeper and earlier than the current campaign, so it might go under earlier under political career. But I'm puzzled because this article doesn't mention the political movement-building he has done, e.g., MAGA, Trumpism. and Christian conservatism. What's your sense of that? (FWIW, my #3 is related to all this, but less important than showing readers his evangelical coalition-building.)
• On Norman Vincent Peale -- Ok, it might sound trivial at first glance. But there are many sources that report, analyze, and opine about the relevance of Peale to Trump. Is it helpful if I give some links, or would that be off-putting here? CNBC 2020,NYT 2016, a Christian POV, biographer in Politico, WaPo 2016, evangelical POV, linking to his COVID approach (one of several), First Things conservative POV, and more.

Thanks for your consideration. ProfGray (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

A consensus appears to be forming for adding Trump's support of Christian nationality somewhere in the article. Peale influence: in an interview [Trump] described Dr. Peale as “a great preacher and a great public speaker” but said nothing about any religious beliefs he had imparted. (New York Times) Trump, in a telephone interview, ... said he was a young man when he first heard Norman Vincent Peale preach. “He would give the best sermons of anyone; he was an amazing public speaker,” Trump said. “He could speak for 90 minutes and people were upset when it was over.” Trump said he was drawn to stories the minister told in the pulpit about successful business executives “overcoming difficulties.” “I found that very interesting,” the billionaire said, adding that he and Peale became friends. “He thought I was his greatest student of all time.” (Washington Post) Sounds more transactional than faith-based. Also, are there any witnesses for Trump attending church every Sunday for 50 years? He has been known to lie ... Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Peale was a far-right Christian nationalist charlatan and a bigot whose model is reflected in much of Trump's present-day rhetoric. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I think his relationship with Peale was transactional, but that's no reason not to include it!Jack Upland (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

No, Peale was a hero and role model - like Roy Cohn, Putin, and Lechter. These icons impregnated the imagination of what would become today's Trump-2024. SPECIFICO talk 12:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Based on responses, I will aim to write something brief in the article about Trump's work with Christian conservatives and (arguable) support for Christian nationalism. Might be next week. It's fine, of course, if somebody else writes this into the article, please let me know via ping.

On Peale, it seems that he deserves at least limited mention as an inspiration (or other term) for Trump. I think this is easiest to put into Religion section, since Trump encountered hiim through church, but other suggested placements are welcome. Thanks for all your responses and finding further sources. ProfGray (talk) 02:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Factoid #2 needs to be removed and I'll acquiesce to those above who say that #1 and #3 should go. In general, it's more important how Trump is perceived by the religious right than trivialities about the few times he actually attended church. _pbp 20:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Add A Fact: "Trump's dismissive response to Pence's peril"

I found a fact that might belong in this article. See the quote below

When told by an aide that Vice President Mike Pence was in peril as the rioting on Capitol Hill escalated on Jan. 6, 2021, President Donald J. Trump replied, “So what?”

The fact comes from the following source:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/02/us/politics/trump-jan-6-case-jack-smith-evidence.html

This post was generated using the Add A Fact browser extension.

Bryson08 (talk) 02:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Trump's reaction is quoted in January 6 United States Capitol attack#Endangering Mike Pence. Callous? Yes. Not on the same level as urging his supporters to "take back our country" by marching to the Capitol to "fight like hell", IMO. If we were to mention every callous and/or outrageous thing he ever said or did (remember him mimicking a disabled reporter?), we'd blow up this article to at least twice its current size. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding part of your message, here's two sides to what he said, from NPR.[2]

"Democrats have pointed to one phrase in particular as they argue that Trump incited those present to march down Pennsylvania Avenue toward the Capitol.

'We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore,' he said.

His defense lawyers, however, point to a different passage, in which Trump said, 'I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.' They argue that his words were not a call for actual violence and lawlessness."

In our article there is the first side but not the second. Bob K31416 (talk) 03:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

but not the second = WP:MANDY. Zaathras (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

It's an undisputed fact that he made both comments during his speech reported by a reliable source, so WP:MANDY does not apply. Our article mentions the first comment, which some interpret as advocating violence, but does not mention the second comment, which clearly advocates for peaceful protest. So we are presenting one-sided information. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The second was widely characterized by reliable sources as insincere, and ineffective in countering the first. But you knew this already. Zaathras (talk) 12:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Especially as the "fight" wording was repeated multiple times as opposed to the single use of "peacefully". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

He also told the Secret Service to let fans carry their guns because he was not the target. Also, after the Secret Service blocked him from attending the riot in person, he did his own mini riot throwing ketchup in all directions. SPECIFICO talk 16:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support add _pbp 12:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - This bio page would be (at least) twice as long, if we get into the habit of adding every quote from the 45th US president. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Not important enough to include in a biography of Trump IMO. He has said a lot of very controversial things, we can't include all of them. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
• Question How much coverage does this have? This should reflect how much WEIGHT there is for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darknipples (talk • contribs) 03:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as relatively trivial. If we included this and every similar thing Trump has said/done the page would be twice as long. Cessaune [talk] 03:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion to add an Age related section to the Public image section

Consider covering some of the recently discussed, age related and mental decline issues, for example based on:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/06/us/politics/trump-speeches-age-cognitive-decline.html | https://www.foxnews.com/video/6355139521112 | https://www.huffpost.com/entry/chris-hayes-trump-mental-decline_n_66da7222e4b07b62af625d4e | https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/24/donald-trump-mental-fitness-campaign LifeDancePro (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

use of "claim"

@Muboshgu (dif) As it stands now, and as I have said in the edit summary, it can be confusing whether it is something Trump said in an interview or an alleged statement in private. Using the word "recounted" accepts this personal anecdote as true, when, in reality, it is a personal anecdote. As this is an anecdotal claim by an individual, it should be referred to as such. Anotherperson123 (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

MOS:CLAIM: To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying disregard for evidence. There are better ways to clarify that he didn't say it in an interview. Like this. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

This still has the problem of "recount". Perhaps replacing "recount" with the neutral word "said" would work best. Anotherperson123 (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it would. If someone can word it with a better neutral word than "said", great. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

reverted edit

@Zaathras What I wrote is not a mandyism, as it is the context of what he said, as stated by the source. I will note, as discussed on that essays' talk page, that it is an often misused essay. My edit is not even the type of edit that the essay is about, as it is not a denial of an allegation. I also cite WP:NOTMANDY. Anotherperson123 (talk) 00:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it was. Thus far your entire history of editing attempts here have been to water down verbiage in the article that you find disagreeable. Not a good start. Zaathras (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

What is your argument for why it is a mandyism, and also for why the essay should apply in this case? Anotherperson123 (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:MANDY applies. After Heather Heyer was killed on August 12, Trump tweeted a four-minute statement blaming the "display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides". After two days of backlash he he called mmembers of the KKK, neo-Nazis and white supremacists "criminals and thugs" on August 14. On August 15, he reverted to blaming both sides. Later he and his supporters claimed that "his fine people on both sides" didn't mean the white supremacists but the (invisible) people peacefully protesting the removal of Lee's statue. Quoting Mandy: Well, he would, wouldn't he? MOS:EDITORIAL also applies. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The article talks about the comments at the unite the right rally. We should mention all the essential details about what he said. Even if it was about some other time he said something, the biography of living persons policy says that articles must state when an allegation is denied. As WP:NOTMANDY notes

'The validity or invalidity of MANDY has been debated extensively by Wikipedia editors. Among their concerns is that MANDY contradicts part of our BLP policy which currently states that when allegations are sourced well enough to be included in a BLP article, then "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too."' Anotherperson123 (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

What allegation? Description is not allegation. SPECIFICO talk 01:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

If it isn't an allegation, WP:MANDY does not apply. If it is an allegation, then WP:NOTMANDY applies. Anotherperson123 (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Please just answer my question so your concern can be resolved directly and constructively. SPECIFICO talk 03:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The allegation that he was referring to white supremacists/supported white supremacists with this statement. This claim is even apparently subject to a fact check ([3]). Anotherperson123 (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

So should we say then "but his characterization was wrong as it was conceived of, led by and attended by white supremacists"? Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

If that's what the sources say, and no sources are found that say something else, that would probably be good, except I would replace "it" with "the rally". Anotherperson123 (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

If no one objects, I will put the proposed change into the article. Anotherperson123 (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

For reference, here's the revert in question [4].
Here's an article that has the transcript of the press conference that contains Trump's original "both sides" comment [5]. Trump clarified in that same press conference what he meant, "And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists." Bob K31416 (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

There was more than one statement — see Unite_the_Right_rally#President_Trump's_response, including the infrastructure press conference at Trump Tower with Chao and Mnuchin smiling awkwardly in the background. Trump backtracked and then backtracked from the backtrack and then backtracked from the backtrack of the backtrack. We've been over this several times in the past seven years. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Here's the third paragraph of the lead of that Wikipedia article you referred to [6].

"US President Donald Trump's remarks about the rally generated negative responses. In his initial statement following the rally, Trump condemned the "display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides."[33] This first statement and his subsequent defenses of it, in which he also referred to "very fine people on both sides", were criticized as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist protesters and the counter-protesters.[7][34][35][36][37] Trump later stated (in the same statement) that "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally–but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists".[38][39]"

For comparison, here's the corresponding part in our article, including the reverted part.

"Trump's comments on the 2017 Unite the Right rally, condemning 'this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides' and stating that there were 'very fine people on both sides', were widely criticized as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist demonstrators and the counter-protesters, although he said he was referring to people who were not white supremacists when talking about 'fine people on both sides'".

It looks like a good edit. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It also twice as long. Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes paragraphs need to be longer than they are to include the essential information. If a shorter version can be found that includes the essential information, good. If not, then we need the extra length. Anotherperson123 (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

And sometimes it adds nothing, then the place for this is the article about the rally, not him. Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

If we're going to include information about the rally, we shouldn't selectively exclude essential details. Anotherperson123 (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

We include the claim he did not mean white supremacists. Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at the Unite the Right article in a while. The last sentence in the lead paragraph about Trump's statements is cherry-picked whitewashing.

Lead paragraph in 2021

U.S. President Donald Trump's remarks on Charlottesville generated negative responses. In his initial statement following the rally, Trump "condemned hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides". While Trump condemned both neo-Nazis and white nationalists,[31] his first statement and subsequent defenses of it, in which he also referred to "very fine people on both sides", were seen by critics as implying moral equivalence between the white supremacist marchers and those who protested against them. Critics interpreted his remarks as sympathetic to white supremacists,[8] while supporters characterized this interpretation as a hoax,[32] because Trump's "fine people" statement explicitly denounced white nationalists.[33][34]

Also not great but at least not WP:MANDY in Wikivoice with the intro "Trump later stated (in the same statement) that". That's a problem that needs to be taken care of in that article, and it's not a mistake we should be repeating in this one. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

If you are on a side that is supported by neo-Nazis and you don't go out of your way to beat the living tar out of them and run them off... then you are not a very fine person. You are, in fact, a neo-Nazi.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 00:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM Anotherperson123 (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a lot worse than WP:NOTFORUM, it's advocating violence. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a philosophical debate around such a thing. Zaathras (talk) 12:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Advocating violence is expressly prohibited by the Wikimedia Code of Conduct. Also, Wikipedia is still not a forum. Anotherperson123 (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Its just an academic discussion or point on the ethics of opposing fascism and hatred ,and the lengths one can or should go. Not everyone is capable of such a discourse though, so, all good. Zaathras (talk) 03:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

As much as I despise Nazis and Nazi apologists, beating the living tar out of people is something Nazis are also well known for, among other things. DN (talk) 08:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS, and Wikipedia is still not a forum. Anotherperson123 (talk) 02:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It might be construed as a general comment, they did not specify a name. Off-topic either way, but I've said my piece. DN (talk) 03:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

There were no personal attacks made, so your link is irrelevant. Zaathras (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Y'all are REALLY overreacting to a simple colorful idiom. By tolerating the presence of the neo-Nazis, the other protesters on that side reveal themselves to not be "very fine people". Very fine people do not allow themselves to be associated with neo-Nazis.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

There were no "other protesters on that side" at the Unite the Right Rally. That was just Trump's spin. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Fast forward to a future where there is a Wikipedia article [[Khajidha]] about a Wikipedia editor who is running in a close race for U. S. president. Editors who are anti-Khajidha have taken control of the article and it is filled with one-sided information. For example there is, "Khajidha has been criticized for advocating violence with the comment 'beat the living tar out of them and run them off'". An editor has tried to include Khajidha's explanation by adding, "although Khajidha said it was just 'a simple colorful idiom '", but couldn't get consensus for the edit. Bob K31416 (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Would the "one-sided information" in this hypothetical article include (as this article on Trump actually does) the fact that said comment was made in reference to neo-Nazis? If so, I think I'd be fine with it.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 10:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I think what's happening here can be summed up as another case where only one-sided information is allowed in the article. Bob K31416 (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

We do mention it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Anotherperson123: It appears you're not going to get a consensus for your proposed changes. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

edit issues

I have issues with your edits as well. Trump didn't brag about having "the ability to" kiss and grope women, he bragged about kissing and groping women. Sources say that. The extra words just obfuscate the text. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Did you post this in the wrong section? This section is about a different edit. Anotherperson123 (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I moved this to a new section. Anotherperson123 (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I posted this comment exactly where I intended to. Do not ever move my comment again. You're just demonstrating to me that you shouldn't be editing this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Very true, so should we say then that he did grab them without persision? Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It says Trump was heard bragging about kissing and groping women without their consent, which is what we should say. Except I'm going to revise "was heard bragging" to "bragged". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It appears I was reading the wrong source, though this source might be useful for some sort of rewording of the sentence. According to the source, a prominent law professor says Trump may have not been speaking about kissing and groping without consent. Anotherperson123 (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Behind a paywall, so did the professor says Trump did not say it, or might not have said it? Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean when you say its behind a paywall. According to the professors' analysis of the recording, Trump may have meant that its easier to get consent when someone is famous, or what he was talking about might technically involve consent, legally speaking. Anotherperson123 (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I erman I can't access it as you need to pay, so I am asking for a quote Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what to quote in the article as there is a lot of material in the article about this. Here's one quote:

'"Regardless of how shocking and horrific Donald Trump's words about 'grab them by the p-----, you can do anything' are ... the activity itself does not necessarily constitute the criminal or civil offense of sexual assault," he wrote in a press release.

Banzhaf explained that Trump's qualifier before the statement — "and when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything" — implies there was consent.' Anotherperson123 (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I am unsure that a collection of if buts and maybes can be used to contest a stated fact. Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

There are no "buts" or "maybes" in that quote. Even if there were, it could still provide something of value. Anotherperson123 (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Not literally but figuratively, it is speculation, not a statement of fact. Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

What one random law professor interprets from Trump's Access Hollywood comment pales in comparison to the WP:RS interpretation of what Trump said. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Not a "random" professor, a prominent professor. Anotherperson123 (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

One professor. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

WEIGHT inversely correlates to the degree of cherry-picking. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2024

I want to post an edit request to explain that Trump campaign asks for military aircraft with antimissile capabilities and other security measures in lead-up to election according to this CNN article I found https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/11/politics/donald-trump-security-requests/index.html. Thank You. 50.100.44.234 (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

more to do with his campaign. Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Mention his nickname "The Donald" in the lede

I'm not sure why this nickname isn't mentioned a single time in the article despite being a quintessential part of Trump's popular identity. For example, the subreddit r/The_Donald was named after this nickname. Even if it shouldn't be in the lede, it should at least be included in the "public image" section.

It was bolded in the article before his 2016 campaign but seems to have been removed by 2017.

Here are some sources I easily found. Obviously, these might not be the best ones to use: https://observer.com/1999/01/trump-vs-trump-in-battle-of-the-exes/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2015/09/01/why-does-everyone-call-donald-trump-the-donald-its-an-interesting-story/ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35318432 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/nyregion/ivana-trump-diet.html

The wording can easily just be taken from the 2015 article: "Trump is popularly known as The Donald, a nickname perpetuated by the media after his first wife Ivana Trump, a native of the Czech Republic, referred to him as such in an interview." However, if it's included in the lede, it ought to be kept more brief. 47.14.104.130 (talk) 03:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The source for the sentence in the 2016 version of this article doesn't support the wording "popularly known". The last iteration of the sentence (Trump has been nicknamed "The Donald" since Ivana referred to him as such in a 1989 Spy magazine cover story) was removed on Feb 25, 2017. The delicious pomposity, coined by First Wife Ivana who spoke Czech using English words, didn't stand the test of time. Ivana's page may be the place for this trivia since she wanted to trademark "The Donald", and Trump opposed it. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd argue that the phrase "popularly known" is well supported by reliable sources. In fact, the article you linked itself states journalists "picked up" on it and it "stuck."

The WaPo article I linked says "everyone call[s] Donald Trump 'The Donald'". It says the nickname has "caught on so big." I found a Fox News article from 2015 that uses the exact phrasing, "popularly known as 'the Donald.'" Whether or not this is reliable is arguable given WP:RSPSS, but I'd argue a nickname is not a political topic, even if it involves a political candidate.

Now has this nickname stood "the test of time," as you say? The NYT article I linked states that "New York never forgot" this nickname. Indeed, one of the "most active communities on Reddit" had this nickname as its title, named as late as 2015. There are even independent encyclopedias who list "The Donald" as his nickname, implying it is a major, popular nickname. The nonpartisan Miller Center does the same. Every single one of these sources doesn't mention a single nickname that Trump uses, other than "The Donald."

Is there precedent? Yes. Bill Clinton's page lists no less than four nicknames in the Public Image section, none of which I'd argue are as popular as "The Donald." Lincoln's page mentions "Honest Abe" – a nickname from his early life, quite similarly to Trump. Jackson's mentions "Old Hickory." So it should definitely be somewhere in the article. The case for including it in the start? Well, the one president that's perhaps popularly known mostly for his nickname, Martin Van Buren, has an entire "nickname" section in his info box. Teddy Roosevelt has the nickname "Teddy" included in bold in the first sentence of his article. Madison's mentions "Father of the Constitution" in the second.

TL;DR sources back up that it's an immensely popular and enduring nickname, and precedent says it should at least be included in the article, if not in the lede/infobox. 47.14.104.130 (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Becasue we do not mention any others? Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to a mention somewhere in Donald_Trump#Popular_culture. Zaathras (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 October 2024

This wiki should be edited to mention the fact that Trump attempted a coup. 24.251.228.229 (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

It already does. From the lead: On January 6, 2021, he urged his supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol, which many of them attacked. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Cognitive decline concerns

Numerous commentators have for some time alleged that Trump is suffering from either age-related or disease-related cognitive decline, to the point where we have a whole article on it: Age and health concerns about Donald Trump. Multiple WP:RS have speculated that he is in the early to mid stages of dementia, and there is substantial evidence that his behavior has changed in recent years, with more and more peculiar episodes and changes in language production (for example, tangentiality, all-or-nothing thinking and the production of word salad). Recent examples from mainstream WP:RS across the political spectrum: [7], [8], [9], [10].

However, there seems to be no mention of this in this article.

I suggest that there should be an "Age and health concerns" section in this article that summarizes some of the key points from the Age and health concerns about Donald Trump article, and links that as "main article". — The Anome (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

In the absence of any response to the above, I've added a section Donald Trump#Age and health concerns, that is a lightly edited version of the lede paragraph of Age and health concerns about Donald Trump. — The Anome (talk) 09:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the section. Nobody else has responded 'yet', because it's likely most editors who would, are still asleep. GoodDay (talk) 09:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay:, this is the correct place for the discussion; I look forward to your comments. It seems very odd to me that a man who is running for president and is now widely being reported as showing signs of possible dementia by respected WP:RS such as the WP and NYT, has no mention of the word "dementia" in the article. — The Anome (talk) 09:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

He hasn't been diagnosed with dementia or any other mental condition. Let's be mindful of the Goldwater rule. GoodDay (talk) 09:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to restore it as an {{empty section}}, put in a {{under construction}} if someone else shows up. Don't really have any opinions on what should or shouldn't be in it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I've removed that restoration. We don't add empty sections to pages. GoodDay (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure we do GoodDay, that's what the template is for. This is starting to seem obstructionist. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I recommend not doing so. Being as proposals for anything on this bio page, usually get heavily scrutinized. GoodDay (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the existence of the template, so I looked it up. Quote: This template is for articles actively undergoing construction. If the article instead is actively undergoing a major edit, please use {{In use}}. But, since GoodDay already objected to The Anome's bold edit, we need to establish a consensus for "actively under[taking]" any edit adding the challenged content or part of the challenged content. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

"I don't want it to be there until there's a consensus" for it isn't a substantive reason for removing something. Reverting on purely procedural grounds like that is an abuse of BRD. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

It was just a sin of omission in the editsum. GoodDay stated their reason here. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it's rather odd we have an entire article Age and health concerns about Donald Trump but nothing at the main article. I'd support some mention of the topic given the coverage in reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 10:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Given there was apparently no substantive reason for reverting the addition and creating an empty section has been rejected for the same reason (that there isn't consensus for it, and, as far as I can tell, nothing else) I'm going to support The Anome's version of the section just to get this over with. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Has he been clinically diagnosed? Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• I support adding "Age and health concerns" as a subsection to Donald Trump#2024 presidential campaign but it needs to be based more on his current speech and behavior. The challenged material:

Age and health concerns

Main article: Age and health concerns about Donald Trump At the age of 78, Trump is the oldest major-party presidential nominee in history, after President Joe Biden withdrew from contention prior to becoming the nominee of his own party in the 2024 United States presidential election. If elected, by the end of his term he would become the oldest person ever to hold the office, sparking renewed discussion of his fitness to assume the presidency. Since the early days of Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, his physical and mental health have been a subject of public debate. Trump was 70 years old when he first took office, surpassing Ronald Reagan as the oldest person to assume the presidency to that date. During Trump's presidency, comments on his age, weight, lifestyle, and history of heart disease raised questions about his physical health. In addition, numerous public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals have speculated that Trump may have mental health impairments, ranging from narcissistic personality disorder to some form of dementia, which runs in his family. References

I don't have a proposal at this moment, have to look at sources. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Current consensus item 39 is to omit it.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). So unless there is a formal diagnosis or MEDRS level source we are not supposed to even discuss it. PackMecEng (talk) 11:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  That's a reason. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Ah. My mistake for not reading the FAQ properly. But the dementia speculation has now reached such a fever pitch that it may be worth revisiting that discussion; even though he hasn't been diagnosed with anything yet, the dementia speculation is now at the very least part of the debate about his public image, and it seems very unnatural to omit it from the article now. And, as WP:RS attest, he has been doing some really weird shit recently. Note: the RfC is here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive329#Donald_Trump's_mental_health — The Anome (talk) 11:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Quoting consensus 39's closing remarks: I read the consensus to be that there shall be no paragraph regarding the mental health of Donald Trump. Should substantial new information regarding Trump's mental health arise, feel free to open a new discussion. And a "paragraph regarding the mental health" isn't the same as "concerns about Trump's age and health" five years after the RfC. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone know the procedure for re-opening the discussion of an RfC? RfCs document consensus at a moment in time, and a lot has changed in the last three years. This certainly counts as "Should substantial new information regarding Trump's mental health arise, feel free to open a new discussion." — The Anome (talk) 11:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Starting a new one, I would think. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Where and how would I do that? I don't know the current procedure for doing so. — The Anome (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

A new consensus can be established without an RfC. You've already started the discussion here. Opening an RfC at this point would be improper, IMO. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I think we should probably have an RFC, even if the previous RFCs are considered stale by the participants here, but we could wait until there are more comments here before adding the RFC tag, which would also allow for some workshopping of the opening statement. Waiting to see if there is a clear consensus first, that might obviate the need, is also in line with WP:RFCBEFORE. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

OK. Here's my proposal: that a section be added that reports the public discussion of concerns about his health, which are now a major part of public discourse. It should obviously not itself speculate on Trump's mental fitness, only report on the comments of WP:RS according to the WP:NPOV guidelines. This would not violate WP:MEDRS, because it would not express an opinion on his mental state, only report on the opinions of others. Opinions, please? — The Anome (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

A consensus/new consensus can be established without an RfC. You've already started the discussion on this page. Opening an RfC at this point would be improper, IMO. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

If you insist on going that route, this is the procedure: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Just to start off: support as proposer, per comments above. — The Anome (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Anome, I suggest you notify the talk page of the article from which your proposed content originated. That page is 6 years old, so the editors there are likely knowledgeable. SPECIFICO talk 20:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Best 'not' to hand out such a notification at another talkpage, Anome. Less that be construed as canvassing for support. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• No, it is media speculation, not a clinical diagnosis, and this is a BLP. Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
• yes it is time, esp after the 39 minute dance this week the topic has received quite a bit of coverage. whether it is a 'diagnosis' or not is not an issue, a encyclopedia is not drawing a medically-based conclusion it is just reflecting the preponderance of the sources. ValarianB (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• No or at best, very limited yes. I know we don't cite other wiki pages. But just for comparison, the Joe Biden main page only gives it about a vague sentence or two, and that's for a figure who's cognitive decline has been much more prominent and widely discussed by RS. Also, that section is titled much more neutrally simply as "Age and health." So overall, this is a "no" unless significantly scaled back. Just10A (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
• No It looks like they are not sincere age and health concerns but political attacks with no consensus of medical professionals. In the last stages of an election campaign, I think it's just part of an expected full court press. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  That's a straw man. The topic is concerns, which have been found NOTABLE on the abundantly sourced wiki page from which the recent content and deletion originated. If it were a medical diagnosis, the lead of this page would simply state "Donald Trump is the demented former POTUS and the demented candidate for 2024." But it isn't a diagnosis and nobody's suggested it is. There should not be a formal poll of any sort here. It's already under discussion and @GoodDay: has provided no policy or content-based rationale not to include this summary of a relevant article, similar to many others on this page. Lacking any such rationale, the removal appears meddlesome and destructive. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting editors who oppose the addition, are disruptive? GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• No - as he hasn't been diagnosed with having any such medical issues. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
• No - We are not going to use non-MEDRS soucres to speculated on someone's mental or physical health. We wouldn't do it with Joe or anyone else. It's also laughable un-encyclopedic. Also it should probably be an RFC to overturn two RFCs and a bunch of previous discussions that all found the same thing. PackMecEng (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Kinda seems like we did do that with Joe [11]. DN (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Ugh, well we shouldn't. PackMecEng (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see a way to "unring" that bell. DN (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Yes See Joe Biden#2024 presidential campaign. "After the debate raised questions about his health and age, Biden faced calls to withdraw from the race, including from fellow Democrats and the editorial boards of several major news outlets". I understand BLP's require extra care, but "concern" doesn't seem to be weasely enough, as long as it's attributed in a verifiable context outside of VOICE. If the same rules that apply to Biden also apply to Trump, "Refuses to release medical records" with "attributed concerns" is where the bar currently sits. See "More than 230 doctors and health care providers, most of whom are backing Vice President Kamala Harris, call on Trump to release medical records" ABC NYT, Independent, CBS. Also see Age and health concerns about Donald Trump Cheers. DN (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  And Biden did step down, is there any indication of similar pressure on Trump from within the GOP? Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  It's not a qualifier as far as I know. Was the "raised questions about Biden's health" only allowed to be added AFTER he stepped down? Cheers. DN (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well I recall making the same arguments there as here, and it all changed when it actually had an impact on the election. Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Let's look at the tape. Looks like concerns about Biden's health were added on the 4th of July "After the debate raised questions about his health, Biden faced calls to withdraw from the race, including from fellow Democrats and the editorial boards of several major news outlets"[12] and Biden didn't resign until July 21st. Did I miss something? DN (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  NO, but I did, as I had opposed that in the past, and did not see the addition. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  I can see wanting to err on the side of caution, but the cat is out of the bag and fairness is the name of the game, and other such idioms... DN (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  So we could say then "After a series of rallies raised questions about his health, Trump faced calls to withdraw from the race, including from fellow Republicana and the editorial boards of several major news outlets", would this be supported by RS? Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  AFAIK There is no policy stipulating the statements must be similar. Only that it must be based on what the sources say. DN (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  1.) Do not substantively edit your comments after editors have already replied to them without indicating it. That is against guidelines.

  2.) I don't know how you can argue "There is no policy stipulating the statements must be similar" when just above that you argued "Kinda seems like we did do that with Joe" and "fairness is the name of the game."

  I agree that policy doesn't mandate they match, but you gotta pick a side. You can't argue "Policy says they don't need to be similar" and then simultaneously say "They gotta similar or else it's unfair." Just10A (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Just10A If I acted improperly I apologize, as it wasn't my intent to mislead anyone, hence the clarification. I wasn't aware adding afaik is considered a substantive change.

  I believe my yes vote implies that I have picked a side. TMK I'm allowed to make observations and express views on the appearance of possible inconsistencies in the application of policy in good faith. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  No problem. I was referring to you adding the ABC source in your earlier comment though just to be clear. I agree that adding AFAIK is more minor. Just10A (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, then I was way off on what I thought you were referring to. I was about to start adding TMK and AFAIK to all of my sentences. I meant to add the ABC source in my original edit, but I goofed. Truly sorry if that screwed something up, I've had similar experiences so I empathize. DN (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Just10A I would briefly add that, TMK the application of policy and the substance of the context being proposed do not represent two conflicting interpretations of the same policies AFAIK. DN (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'd like to see someone confirm what sort of secondary coverage is here, but WP:MEDRS is irrelevant here because biographical information is not biomedical information: we should almost never include things like how a disease works or how it is diagnosed (except insofar to mention the subject isn't, when that's the case) on a biographical article in the first place. That is not to say we should not ask for the absolute best quality sources, but MEDRS is an inappropriate guideline here. Also, discussion on this topic will also need to consider how and where primary sources are used on the subarticle. Due weight concerns don't go away simply because the content happens to be on another article, and not mentioning something we have an entire subarticle on even once in the main article is close to essentially forcing the subarticle to be a POV fork, an outcome I'd expect neither those supporting nor opposing inclusion should want. Alpha3031 (t • c) 22:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

No. This is still a BLP. Riposte97 (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment For anyone interested in additional details about "Age and health concerns about Joe Biden" being added to the LEAD of Joe Biden's BLP, they appeared about nine days before he bowed out of the 2024 presidential race. It made it onto the LEAD on July 12, [13]. On the 18th a CFN tag was added [14], then removed [15], then re-added and removed again on the 19th [16], back on the 20th [17], removed same day [18], then again re-added by FMSky on the 20th [19], then removed again same day [20], re-added same day [21], and finally within the next 8-24 hours he dropped out [22]. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Let me clarify 2 more things then I'm outta here. First, I goofed again when I pinged FMSky, total brain fart that might be perceived as intentional CANVAS or sabotage, I'm just tired from editing all day and got distracted putting diffs together. It's no excuse it's just being honest, you can check my contribs. I doubt they would agree with my vote anyway. Second, I'm not saying this is a good reason to do the same thing here, I just think it's relevant somehow. Sorry if I screwed up, it wont happen again (here at least). Cheers. DN (talk) 02:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Include. In the last 5-14 days since Harris released her "excellent health" report, there has been renewed coverage in RS about Trump's refusal to release his medical records[23][24][25] and the recent town hall that was even beyond the usual performance standard.[26] Even after Biden it was mentioned [27][28][29][30] Andre🚐 05:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Regarding the rally in Oaks, PA that's been mentioned in this section and in various news media sources, here's the full video of it from C-SPAN [31]. I think it's been mischaracterized as age and health concerns for Trump. Bob K31416 (talk) 07:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)