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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by unlisted consensus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 (Dec 2016, superseded Nov 2024)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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)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)

Racially charged

Hello all, I see Consensus #30, based particularly on this Request for Comment says: "The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist."" I can also see that this is the only mention of "racially charged" in the article. Would editors here support removal of "racially charged" until such text is supported in the body? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Would editors here support removal of "racially charged" until such text is supported in the body? Not this one, per process. We're not going to amend #30 until the body is fixed, then reverse the amendment. "Racially charged" appears to have enough RS support, so just find a way to work it into the body. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

What does "reverse the amendment" mean? Go back to Consensus 24? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC) I understand. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I see the grammatical ambiguity. :) ―Mandruss ☎ 07:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

This seems backwards. Lead follows body. We shouldn't treat the consensus list as sacrosanct, it's merely there to keep track of RfCs. If the article has moved on, I'd support a new RfC to challenge the previous one. Riposte97 (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Riposte97 I think an RfC should be avoided if it can be. Do you think you could WP:FIXIT? I'll have a go as well in a bit. If we don't have luck we can look at overturning Consensus #30.

Given it's an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, high-quality sources will be needed. I wouldn't accept journalists being arbitrators of whether his comments were "racially charged", political scientists will have written on it and we shouldn't accept inferior sourcing. This is the standard that was applied for "cult of personality". Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Your reasoning seems consistent with WP:NEWSORG. A departure, probably more impactful (disruptive?) than you realize, but maybe ultimately good for the article. No strong opinion provided we adhere to the established consensus process. If that means revisiting #30, I suppose you pass the "significant new argument(s)" test. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave, apologies that I've not had the time to properly devote to this. I'll see what I can add to your page in the coming days. Riposte97 (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Yep definitely. 92.30.105.204 (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I have created a page User:Rollinginhisgrave/Trump racism descriptor as a space for research on this article. I intended to use academic sources in Racial views of Donald Trump as the basis to follow summary style, but extremely disappointingly, only six of the almost 500 sources are academic.

This is collaborative so please help! If this can be pinned to the top of this page for a short while it would be valuable. Remember, for WP:WEIGHT, we are not merely looking for multiple sources describing him or his comments/actions as racist/racially charged, but for the weighted response of high-quality academic sources to these questions. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

SusanLesch Pinging you in case this effort is of interest. Been working mostly on collating books right now as journals are daunting for finding discussion of general scholarly consensus. If you find other useful texts along the way providing a scholarly retrospective assessment on aspects, I'm currently dropping them in User:Rollinginhisgrave/sandbox_2. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Will do. Sorry if I'm slow today with journals but I will catch up. On this topic per MOS:LEADNO, not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text, however this statement absolutely should be cited per MOS:CITELEAD. Seems like a good place for a perfectly cited footnote. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks :) Yes the key issue is definitely it being uncited. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Support removal. "Racially charged" is nothing but a euphemism for "racist". When you consider that in the same sentence we are saying that Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as outright racist, it makes even less sense to "soften" the characterization with this term. Reading that old discussion, I think the true reason that many editors tended to support the euphemism was because it softens the perception that we are saying he is racist in Wikivoice. "Characterized by some" was rightly rejected by editors as too vague, but perhaps "characterized by critics" could be used to clearly attribute the characterization and prevent reader misunderstanding. — Goszei (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

it needs removing for sure. it's against WP:Biographies_of_living_persons on multiple counts, but specially "Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced" ~ Smellymoo 18:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

It's sourced in Donald Trump#Views. A citation should be added to the lead per MOS:LEADCITE. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I do not oppose the lead's inclusion of the fact that many characterize Trump as racist. I am only supporting the removal of the term "racially charged", which I feel is redundant. — Goszei (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Suggest you look up the meaning of "racially charged". Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  This comment is going over my head. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Tracking lead size

Word counts by paragraph and total.

05 Nov 2024 — 614 = 29 + 101 + 106 + 156 + 101 + 121

12 Nov 2024 — 657 = 46 + 101 + 116 + 175 + 176 + 43

19 Nov 2024 — 418 = 62 + 76 + 153 + 127

26 Nov 2024 — 406 = 56 + 70 + 138 + 142

03 Dec 2024 — 418 = 53 + 64 + 158 + 143

10 Dec 2024 — 413 = 54 + 62 + 153 + 144

Tracking article size

Readable prose size in words – Wiki markup size in bytes – Approximate number of additional citations before exceeding the PEIS limit.

05 Nov 2024 — 15,818 – 421,592 – 103

12 Nov 2024 — 15,883 – 427,790 – 046

19 Nov 2024 — 15,708 – 430,095 – 012

26 Nov 2024 — 15,376 – 414,196 – 067

03 Dec 2024 — 15,479 – 415,176 – 064

10 Dec 2024 — 15,279 – 404,464 – 122

Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

Uninvolved closure requested.[1] ―Mandruss ☎ 14:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

SPECIFICO was topic banned from Donald Trump a couple of months ago and their above comment was given as the last example of why.[2] Bob K31416 (talk) 14:26, 10 December 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 [3]. 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)

  Not to point fingers or drag this out even further (see below), but this (correction, see comment by Just10A above) seems to be where comparisons to the Biden article actually started. Cheers. DN (talk) 10:35, 14 November 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"[4] 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)

  True, but it also means they are not the same situation, which was my point, that they are not analogous. Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 17 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)

I also don't see how WP:MEDRS (identifying reliable third-party published secondary sources accurately reflecting current knowledge on biomedical information (information relating to or could reasonably be perceived as relating to human health)) applies. If a majority of reliable sources describes the candidate's speech as increasingly incoherent and his behavior as increasingly bizarre, it's not a medical diagnosis. Consensus 39: This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:33, 17 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, [5]. On the 18th a CFN tag was added [6], then removed [7], then re-added and removed again on the 19th [8], back on the 20th [9], removed same day [10], then again re-added by FMSky on the 20th [11], then removed again same day [12], re-added same day [13], and finally within the next 8-24 hours he dropped out [14]. 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[15][16][17] and the recent town hall that was even beyond the usual performance standard.[18] Even after Biden it was mentioned [19][20][21][22] Andre🚐 05:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources

• Yes, there is polling and Trump hasn't disclosed his medical records.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. People say that it should not be included because there is no MEDRS-level source that lists Trump's health. However, this did not stop concerns about Biden's health being added to the Joe Biden page, nor did it stop the creation of the Age and health concerns about Joe Biden Wikipedia page. There is also an Age and health concerns about Donald Trump page. Wikipedia is governed by the consensus of reliable sources, and multiple reliable sources have brought up this topic to the extent that an entire individual page on the wiki exists to cover it, thus the content is WP:DUE. To not at least mention it on this page would be a violation of WP:NPOV and I don't like it through the introduction of editorial bias by having Wikipedia editors decide that the issue is "not important" enough to mention on this page, despite multiple RS clearly making the case that this issue is worth mentioning. BootsED (talk) 03:58, 20 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 [23]. I think it's been mischaracterized as age and health concerns for Trump. Bob K31416 (talk) 07:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Yes! Its absurd having a long article Age_and_health_concerns_about_Donald_Trump with 120 references but trying to hide that in the main article. This is really a hot topic in the media (US and abroad) so deleting it here is really ridiculous. Especially with the Joe Biden entry featuring such an paragraph. Andol (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Amen to this. Biden has never been diagnosed with dementia, so it would be wildly improper to suggest that he does, per WP:MEDRS, but we can and should report the widely WP:RS-reported public political controversy regarding the possibility of dementia, per WP:NPOV, as it is politically significant. Trump should not be treated as a special case who is somehow privileged over others. — The Anome (talk) 06:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Yes for basically the reason Andol gave. There's a long article on these concerns, so we clearly have ample sourcing for them, so it's weird we're not mentioning them much here. Loki (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The decline may not have been as obvious as Biden's because it started from a much lower baseline, but it was noticeable and noticed. Just this week, there was the 39-minute musical interlude at the Oaks, PA, town hall; the non-responsive rambling during the Bloomberg interview; on Friday, a 10-year old asked Trump on [Fox&Fiends (at 34:26) who his favorite president was when he was little. Trump said "Reagan", then rambled on about Lincoln, the Civil War, Ukraine, Russia, October 7, buying oil from Iran, etc.; and at yesterday's rally in Latrobe, PA, where he "spewed crude and vulgar remarks" and regaled the crowd with tales of Arnold Palmer being "strong and tough" and "unbelievable" in the shower, adding to the "impression of [Trump] as increasingly unfiltered and undisciplined". Quoting the AP headline: Trump kicks off a Pennsylvania rally by talking about Arnold Palmer’s genitalia. NPR called it "an unusually energetic rally for the former president, who has looked and sounded tired of late while doing multiple events and interviews a day across multiple swing states".Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources

• Oaks Town Hall — (Good-faith refactoring of distracting side issue was reverted. The following posts were in response to this. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC) )

It wasn't a rally. It was a "town hall" staged by the Trump campaign, with Republican operatives posing as "constituents" and reading off cue cards. One of them, "Angelina who had voted Democrat all my life and was from a Democrat union household" had to correct herself because she forgot to say "union household"; she's Angelina Banks who was the Republican nominee for Township Commissioner and State Representative in Pennsylvania's 154th and lost with 19.3% to Nelson's 80.7%. Mischaracterized? The campaign had prepared 10 Q&As but after five the Q&A turned into a bizarre musical event with Trump giving a minion a playlist and then standing on stage not even dancing. Just standing, occasionally swaying, jerking his arms, finger-pointing at the audience, and making faces/smiling(?). And, in keeping with the musical theme, two days later Fox unearthed the set of Hee Haw for an all-women town hall with an audience of MAGA supporters asking curated puff questions. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources

I think it's been mischaracterized... You personal analysis of reliable sources is of no concern to this page. If the sources cover this as an example of the subject's mental decline, then so shall we. Not necessarily in the proverbial "WikiVoice" but as "sources say." For now. Zaathras (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• No There are no reliable secondary sources reporting that Trump has age-related cognitive decline, just speculation from his opponents. One editor mentioned that we covered this for Biden, but it was in the article about his recent presidential campaign. That's where this informtion belongs. It isn't possible to list every accusation made by his opponents in this article, so there is a high bar for inclusion. TFD (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Speculation from his opponents? You mean denial of his supporters? I think it is obvious to everyone except is supporters that he has massive issues. This is not a political campaign. It is a topic reported in international media all over the world, even making headlines. And everyone can see it. The only news outlets that don't report on this are the conservative media in US! Think about that. Greetings from Germany, where Trumps decline seems to be better covered than in (the conservative) parts of the US media. Andol (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there something askew with these sources? They seem to be speculating at the very least.

NYT: Trump’s Speeches, Increasingly Angry and Rambling, Reignite the Question of Age

Independent: Trump’s rambling and angry speeches raise questions about his age and fitness to serve four years

Independent: Experts say Trump’s speaking style shows ‘potential indications of cognitive decline’

New Republic: Watch: Embarrassing Video Reveals Trump’s Alarming Cognitive Decline

The Atlantic: Trump’s Repetitive Speech Is a Bad Sign

WaPo: What science tells us about Biden, Trump and evaluating an aging brain

LA Times: Trump’s rhetorical walkabouts: A sign of ‘genius’ or cognitive decline?

Cheers. DN (talk) 02:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources lose their reliability when they express politically motivated opinion and manipulation during a heated election campaign. Buried in one of those sources is a glimmer of rational journalistic integrity, "...the experts in memory, psychology, and linguistics who spoke to STAT noted that they couldn’t give a diagnosis without conducting an examination...". Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Not according to policy, bias it not a justification for rejecting a source, only lack of factual accuracy. Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't fall for the bias claim. It doesn't make you biased if you report on those glaring issues. They are obvious. Rather the opposite is true. It takes willful denial, i.e. bias, to not see it. The whole point here is that Trump as a whole is such an abnormal person that he has shifted the goalposts to such a distance that there is no standard to measure him and thus he can get away with anything. And that is a problem for Wikipedia, because Biden is compared to normal people (making him look old), while Trump is compared to himself. Add the near-total polarization in the US, which has his supporters deny everything, even the possibility that there could be anything. Please step back and look up, how the Rest of the world looks at Trump and this election. It's not how the US see it. Trust me. 80 % of the population is in utter disbelieve how Trump with all of his glaring issues even got there, lest how someone who is right in his mind can even think a second of voting for him. And we do really debate if he has issues? Claiming he hasn't is biased, not the other way round. This is a clear situation where the truth is not halfway in the middle. Look at this. Just imagine Joe Biden or Kamala Harris being on stage bragging about the size of some dudes dick. The outcry would be thermonuclear and it would be broadly covered in his or her article in literally five seconds. Here? Thats Trump, normal day in the office, so what. Irrelevant, he made a thousand similar remarks. And that creates a systematic bias pro Trump, because there is no standard he doesn't fall short of, and therefore nothing is noteworthy, no matter how egregious. Andol (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• No - If it was to be included, it would have to be introduced as mere speculation because of MEDRS, but I do not believe there has been any particulary significant RS reporting of speculation about cognitive decline as there was about Biden nor any substantive reason (like a drop out over it) to include it. Trump's speculated cognitive decline has only been popping in the news for the past couple months because he's now the old guy on the ticket, and Dems naturally want to capitalize on that. Not WP:DUE at this time. R. G. Checkers ^talk 14:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
  • @R. G. Checkers: And yet we have all the cites from mainstream media WP:RS cited above. Mysteriously, this sort of reporting is regarded as WP:NPOV when it comes to Biden, yet not for Trump. As Elon Musk would say, "Interesting." Is there any point at which you might regarded the public debate about Trump's mental competence noteworthy enough to mention here, or are you just waiting for the election to be over? — The Anome (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

    Yes, and it won’t be because he danced at a rally. It would be if there was sustained coverage over months long periods with concerns of cognitive decline or if he literally had drop out of the race because of it. But do I think that 3 weeks before an election with politics flaring and a sudden emphasis on his alleged mental decline is a good reason for inclusion? I answer no. R. G. Checkers ^talk 19:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

    In other words, WP:DUE but not before the election? I didn't know WP had to adhere to DOJ guidelines. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

    Is there some policy I'm not aware of that gives a waiting period, especially if your name isn't Joe Biden? DN (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

    That's not exactly what Mr. Checkers said. I agree that we should ensure the content is WP:DUE by waiting to see if it's a blip, or something carried through by the sources for more than a few days. Space4Time3Continuum2x, you are usually a stalwart adherent of both established consensus and conservative application of policy - what gives? Riposte97 (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

    Last week happened. (I'm still trying to unimagine the unbelievable Arnold Palmer in the shower — a few extra nipples, a rudimentary third leg, a tattoo of Richard Nixon on his back? Although that one is on Roger Stone, I believe, another Trump friend.) This isn't new. NYT in 2018: "Trump's self-absorption, impulsiveness, lack of empathy, obsessive focus on slights, tenuous grasp of facts and penchant for sometimes far-fetched conspiracy theories have generated endless op-ed columns, magazine articles, books, professional panel discussions and cable television speculation." Now we have a flood of reporting on what was obvious for months for everyone who watched Trump rallys on C-SPAN. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

    Your personal analysis or perceived opinion on what's "obvious" about political candidates is irrelevant to the discussion at issue. You're getting seriously close to WP:NOTFORUM. Quit rambling and stick to neutral discussion about the topic at hand to improve the encyclopedia. Just10A (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

    WP:NOPA. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

    Asking you to stop violating policy is not a personal attack. Just10A (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

    This has been reported on maybe as far back as 2017.

    2017

    2017

    2017

    2017

    2017

    Jan 2024

    No one seems to be suggesting this goes into the lead sentence, and as far as policy goes, eerily similar material to Age and health concerns about Donald Trump made it into the the Biden article as far back as July 4th, and it's STILL there. DN (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

    As is frequently pointed out to new users of this page, the fact that some other page on Wikipedia has a different consensus has no bearing on this one. That is usually understood when we are resisting putting something positive in, but seems all to quickly jettisoned when convenient. Regarding the Oaks Town Hall which precipitated this thread, neutral RS seem to offer an explanation that is inconsistent with the line pushed by more partisan sources that Trump had some kind of mental episode. See for example: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/trump-town-hall-derailed-after-medical-emergencies-crowd/story?id=114796716. I remain unconvinced that the content should be added. Riposte97 (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

    "neutral RS seem to offer an explanation that is inconsistent with the line pushed by more partisan sources"

    These threads get so long it's hard to keep track. Please link or cite examples of partisan and neutral sources to which you're referring if you get the chance, it would be very helpful. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

    Judging by the headlines, we shouldn't use the 2017 sources per the Goldwater rule (psychiatrists/psychologists diagnosing people they haven't seen as patients). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

    Also, I may a bit confused as to where this thread begins and ends. I may be unintentionally conflating the Oaks town hall and the Proposal: Age and health concerns...Cheers. DN (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• The 39 minute weird man-dancing (partly to YMCA, a song about gay hookups of all things) may actually be the worst example of his cognitive decline as he was quiet instead of rambling nonsense. Indeed, it could be an example of something not at all recent. It certainly doesn't belong in this article. Perhaps elsewhere. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  Not sure if you've seen the unbiased raw video of the Oaks, PA event. On the webpage of C-SPAN's presentation of the full video [24], to the right there is a list of the points of interest in the video: Gov. Kristi Noem (R-SD) Remarks, Fmr. President Trump Remarks, Affordable Homeownership, Family Request Congressional Hearing, Cost of Living, Immigration, Russia-Ukraine War, Immigration & Deportation, Medical Emergency. Notably missing from C-SPAN's list is "weird man-dancing". Bob K31416 (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  What's your point? The C-SPAN video shows the entire event. The music starts at 45:00 and continues until the end. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  For context, note that the first medical emergency began at 39:00, 6 minutes before your start time. Viewing the video starting at 39:00 will give a better idea of what's going on. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  I've seen the video and I don't see your point either. Trump just said that he is ahead in every one of the 50 states in the polls. Every state. His goofy, silent dancing was far more rational. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

What particularly irritates me here is the double standard of invoking WP:MEDRS in regard to this. No-one is asking for Wikipedia to state that Trump has dementia, or that he has suffered a medical cognitive decline; the issue here is that his increasingly erratic behavior has become a significant news story, and is being reported in reputable MSM sources such as the NYT and WP, who have bent over backwards to be fair to Trump, wouldn't have dreamed of doing eveen a few months ago. Yet for some reason, we're not allowed to use these WP:RS to report these events and the public concern about them in the MSM. This is a profoundly un-encyclopedic things to do that breaks the fundamental WP:NPOV policy. Rejecting any mention of significant major MSM coverage because you don't like it is just another form of WP:OR, — The Anome (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

But that is the consensus on this article. That MEDRS sources are required, even to have the conversation technically. PackMecEng (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

If this is absolute, then it could not be in the Biden article. But it is. Therefore there is no way to deny the pro Trump bias. MEDRS cannot only protect Trump, but ignore Biden. To me the deletion sounds politically motivated. And that is a major problem. Andol (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Andol Look at the top of the page in current consensus #39. Nothing is politically motived. PackMecEng (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I made a WP:BOLD edit to see how this plays out [25]. Maybe there is consensus? DN (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm good with it and hope it sticks. PackMecEng (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry DN, could you link to your change? I can't seem to find it. Riposte97 (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

He changed it on the Joe Biden page, not the Trump one. I had the same confusion initially. Just10A (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you. Riposte97 (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Please do NOT refer to me as "he". They or them is fine. DN (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree MEDRS applies there any more than it does here, but I don't particularly care if it's in the lead or how much weight to give to it, so long as it's there. I will revert if someone tries to remove all three paragraphs about it in the other article though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

An editor has now re-added Age and health concerns about Joe Biden back into the lead on Joe Biden's BLP. I am not going to remove it, and agree that we should leave it. IMO Age and health concerns about Donald Trump now seems over-DUE here. DN (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Mx. Nipples, the existence of a section on another page has absolutely zero bearing on what should be on this one. None. We go by consensus, not by precedent. Riposte97 (talk) 05:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Off-topic about gender pronouns. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Please do not refer to me as "Mx." or "Mr." as that appears to be your intent. They/them is accurate. DN (talk) 06:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC) (Given that "x" is nowhere near "r" on a keyboard, I'm guessing "Mx." was not a typo but an attempt to be gender neutral. It can be read as a convenient shorthand for "Mr., Ms., or M-other, as you please". It's the best attempt available, since "They/them Nipples" would be nonsensical. Maybe we don't need to go any further down this rabbit hole, at least not on this page.) ―Mandruss ☎ 06:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC) I simply asked for them not to call me that, I did not get upset or make a personal attack, I just made a simple request. I'm aware of what Mx. means and I simply do not wish be referred to in that manner. I do not care why you think it's any of your business or why you feel the need to intervene here, and that is a rabbit hole that certainly does not belong here. DN (talk) 06:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC) I read "Mr." as that appears to be your intent to mean you thought they meant (intended) "Mr.". Sorry if I misread easily-misread writing. I do not care why you think it's any of your business or why you feel the need to intervene here - Now you're gettin' me riled. Look, you comment on this page, regardless of the topic, and you open yourself up to replies from anybody. There are no "private" conversations here or almost anywhere else at Wikipedia. You want a "private" conversation, use email. That's how it works, like it or not. End. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC) You're the one that brought it up here, and I have since moved it to a personal talk page, where it belongs. DN (talk) 06:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

↑↑↑↑ Agree as to process. Other articles never affect this article unless a community consensus says they do for a specific discrete situation. This is a common misconception, understandable given the human desire for consistency, but you won't find it anywhere in policy, and not for lack of attempts to make it so. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

That was more of an aside. See Riposte's removal of cited content on the current subject, referring to a now seemingly dormant discussion. DN (talk) 06:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. It's been covered extensively in media reports, which is the only criteria that really matters here. Cessaune [talk] 17:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Question Riposte97 See edit - There has been no further discussion here for the last few days. What is still being discussed? BTW, "age and health concerns for Joe Biden" was added back into his BLP in the lead, and I see no further arguments over MEDRS. DN (talk) 05:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  If you have a problem with the Biden page, take it to the Biden page. There is currently no consensus to add the disputed material to this page. Riposte97 (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I never had a problem with the Biden BLP, but I asked you what is left to discuss here. DN (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'll ask again. What is left to discuss? DN (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with you that there isn't a ton left to discuss. But the discussion did not end with your proposed addition achieving consensus. As already outlined in this thread: (1) wikipedia is not a source, what occurs on a totally different page has no bearing on this one; and (2) Even if it did, the situations are clearly distinguishable. It's included on Biden's page as relevant primarily because it's the reason Biden dropped out of the race. The same is not true for Trump. Thus, since the situations are distinguishable and consensus has not adopted it, it's unlikely to be added. Just10A (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, it wasn't my proposal, and the primary argument against the addition seemed to be that it violated MEDRS, not because this BLP needed to be like the Biden BLP. The Biden BLP was only used as an example of how the MEDRS argument didn't seem to hold water. DN (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  "It's included on Biden's page as relevant primarily because it's the reason Biden dropped out of the race."

  I thought we weren't using edits from one BLP as an example to justify similar edits to the other?

  Anyway, that content was added BEFORE Biden dropped out.

  So, there goes that excuse. DN (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  I thought we weren't using edits from one BLP as an example to justify similar edits to the other? We aren't. That's why I explicitly began the point with "Even if it did". We don't use another page as a source, but even if we did, the situations are clearly distinguishable for the reasons already outlined throughout the post. The addition doesn't have consensus, so it's not going to be added at this time. Just10A (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, I'm not advocating for the Oaks Town Hall to be used as evidence for concerns about age and health, especially in VOICE. Far from it. I simply disagree that there is any clear violation of MEDRS to include something like (below)

  • Trump, if he served his full second term, would become the oldest President of the United States ever. Since his emergence as a politician, Trump has provided less information about his health than is normal for presidential candidates WaPo

  Cheers. DN (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well, that's not really what this thread entitled 'Oaks Town Hall' is about. Perhaps start a new one with your suggested text. Riposte97 (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Why start yet another thread? Seems like an additional time sink. DN (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support - sorry, I missed this on the talk page. Now extensive and increasing sourcing on the topic. Blythwood (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Seems like the Harris campaign and news media have moved from age and health concerns to fascism. Do you have any new links that came out this week for age and health concerns? Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Seems there was a YouGov poll and pieces in Time magazine and the New Yorker, recently...

  "As the calls grow for Donald Trump to release his medical records, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris called out her opponent once more during a rally in Houston, Texas, on Friday. She pointed towards the legal battle of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and other Texas right wing leaders to access the private medical records of patients who seek out-of-state abortions." Time 10-27-24

  "Over half of Americans, 56 percent, said they believe that Trump’s age and health would impact his ability to serve as commander-in-chief at least a little bit, according to another YouGov poll conducted earlier this month.

  Over one-third, 36 percent, said the former president will be “severely” undercut by his age and health. Another one-third, 33 percent, said those factors will not impact the Republican nominee.

  Inversely, 62 percent of Americans said Harris’s health and age will not affect her work in the White House if she is elected president, according to the survey." The Hill 10-26-24

  "couple of weeks ago, Donald Trump turned in one of his strangest performances in a campaign with no shortage of them—part of a series of oddities that may or may not constitute an October surprise but has certainly made for a surprising October. 'Who the hell wants to hear questions?' he hollered at a town hall in Pennsylvania, after two attendees had suffered medical emergencies. Then he wandered the stage for nearly forty minutes, swaying to music from his playlist—'Ave Maria,' 'Y.M.C.A.,' 'Hallelujah.'" The New Yorker 10-27-24

  "An increasing number of Americans say Donald Trump is too old to be president — but not as many as when President Joe Biden faced similar concerns about his age over the summer.

  A new poll from YouGov found that 44 percent said Trump, at age 78, is too old to lead the executive branch. That figure is up from 35 percent who said the same in a similar February survey." The Independent 10-27-24

  Cheers. DN (talk) 05:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Respectfully, there is no way this is going to get consensus here. If you feel really strongly, maybe start an RfC. That would probably be the most appropriate way to displace the existing RfCs. Riposte97 (talk) 07:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  I was replying to Bob K3416's recent request..."Do you have any new links that came out this week for age and health concerns?"

  Your declarative statement may be a bit out of place in this context, and brings up what appears to be an inconsistency.

  [26] As you also stated in your recent removal of cited content that is months old (clarify - irl - not the article itself)... "This is still being discussed on the talk page"

  What are the means by which to reconcile "this is still being discussed", at the same time as, "there is no way this is going to get consensus here"?

  Cheers. DN (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for your response with the links.

  Regarding the rest of your message, the logic isn't clear. Various messages here are evidence that it is still being discussed and the point that you are trying to make with your sentence, "What is the means..." is unclear. For one thing, note that you are comparing an edit summary on the article page with a message on this talk page. Seems like apples and oranges. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Darknipples has now edited their comment, although the argument isn't any more compelling imo. Riposte97 (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  I was about to add (Btw I corrected my grammar slip) Reverting under the auspices of "it's under discussion", gives the appearance of contradiction to the recent declaration that "there is no way to achieve consensus"

  Granted, I wouldn't completely disagree with Riposte97's removal of some of the context, but the rest seems like it could be DUE. (below)

  • Trump, if he served his full second term, would become the oldest President of the United States ever. Since his emergence as a politician, Trump has provided less information about his health than is normal for presidential candidates.

  A partial revert leaving this portion would seem fine. DN (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  The second sentence wasn't in the given source. The insinuation of being in poor health since becoming a politician is contradicted by the fact that he served 4 years as president without any apparent chronic health problem or physical weakness, and he is currently vigorously campaigning for president. Be careful of age discrimination where healthy people are presumed weak and unhealthy because they are old. If you were elderly, healthy and strong, I don't think you would like people insinuating that you were unhealthy and weak because you were chronologically old. Be well. Bob K31416 (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  "The second sentence wasn't in the given source."

  Good catch, I pulled it from the edit that was reverted so maybe the citation might have been placed further in.

  As far as "insinuating he is in poor health", that is not what the proposal is about. The proposal was for reports regarding public concern for his age and health, that does not involve speculation or "insinuate" anything specific as to violate MEDRS.

  • "The age of presidential candidates has been a key issue for voters this year. A Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll, conducted before last week’s Republican convention, found that 60 percent of Americans said Trump is too old for another term as president, including 82 percent of Democrats, 65 percent of independents and 29 percent of Republicans."

  DN (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  His age is already in the article. Riposte97 (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  Water is wet. DN (talk) 05:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. There is overwhelming and WP:SUSTAINED coverage of it at this point; the fact that it is speculative (which some people object to above) doesn't matter, since we do cover speculation when it has sufficient coverage and is clearly relevant to the subject. As WP:BLP says, If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it, emphasis mine. For recent coverage, which someone requested above, see eg. ; for older coverage, there's a massive number of sources on Age and health concerns about Donald Trump. --Aquillion (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  the article have all the negatives about Trump or they have been put under a bad light. For eg: he met north korean president but without decreasing the nuclear prospect. It doesn't consider that Trump's predecessors or successors hasn't visited him and downright refused to that idea. And north korea did decreased thier frequency in building nuclear weapon. These article seems to be put forward by a Trump hater, and doesn't even mention all the good things he has done, like low inflation, boosting economy etc. 2409:40D0:1007:DCA2:E484:1679:D4AE:2CC2 (talk) 07:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. See Public image of Donald Trump#Temperament. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• I think it's time to close this discussion. Bob K31416 (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  What rationale? Stale? Consensus? We need a rationale or we just let things fall off the page naturally. Of course we've just added another 14 days by merely saying this. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  There is at least consensus to change Consensus item #39 (last modified July 2021) to allow discussion regarding Trump's mental health or fitness for office even without diagnosis. Biden's cognitive health has been in his article since 9/2023: Special:Diff/1175184377 Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Uninvolved close sounds prudent. Cheers. DN (talk) 10:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  I was confusing "close with consensus assessment" with "close to get stuff off the page per consensus 13". Sorry Bob. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• No, go on about Trump not living up to his promises to release his health info, but jeez, just don't add speculation. Let's do a litmus test: if I speculated about @User:Example having Obsessive-compulsive disorder on Wikipedia, my ass would get a harsh warning, if not a block, so apply that thinking to Trumpty-Dumpty. It's a person, yes, and it's bad to speculate like that about any person. I wonder what Trump thinks about all this Wikipedia obsession about him... BarntToust 14:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Removal of sources

@SusanLesch, you have recently removed multiple sources in the political practice and rhetoric section. My initial edit added in multiple peer-reviewed journal articles that backed up the claims which were made, which @Nikkimaria then further condensed in half, which you have now condensed even further to one source per claim. However, I take issue with your recent condensing and your use of direct quotes that now tell the reader that only this "one" researcher found that Trump's rhetoric used fearmongering or that it was essential to his support, where previously multiple researchers in multiple peer-reviewed articles had come to that conclusion. I believe this engages in whitewashing and presents an inaccurate view of the scholarly consensus and suggests to the reader that such opinions are not widespread and only one or two researchers believe this, which is not the case. I would like to recommend restoring the edit as Nikkimaria had made it. You also removed a journal article because it had "no access", however, this is not a reason that a source should be removed. Rather, you should add an appropriate template to the reference noting that it requires a subscription. Others may have access to the source if you require access to it. BootsED (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Individual researchers opinions shouldn't really be cited unless we can verify they are representative in some sense to avoid giving undue weight. Citing two isn't much better than just citing one in such a sense; it doesn't constitute a scholarly consensus. Use review articles etcetera for these purposes. Agree on not removing a source simply because of no-access per WP:SOURCEACCESS, but if two sources are of equal verification value and we only need one, the more accessible one should be preferred.

I don't find the accusations of "whitewashing" helpful; consider that by using such a term, you are implying Susan is acting with malice. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave My initial edit added multiple sources, many more than two, but it was reduced by Nikkimaria in order to avoid overciting. For the fearmongering claim I have about ten that I shrunk down to four very strong peer-reviewed journal articles, which were then shrunk down to two by Nikkimaria, which were then shrunk down to one by SusanLesch who reworded it to simply state that this one researcher thought Trump used fearmongering, which as you yourself stated, "individual researchers opinions shouldn't really be cited unless we can verify they are representative in some sense to avoid giving undue weight." Susan has been on a source removing spree and has also removed many other sources on this page so far for various reasons as a look at the page edit history will show. BootsED (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

As I'm sure you can understand, citing even ten sources rather than two does not signify that the opinion represented therein is representative of academic consensus. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

So first I am told I have too many peer-reviewed sources and need to remove them. Then I am told I do not have enough peer-reviewed sources and need to have more. Now I am told that even if I had many peer-reviewed sources, they are not enough. I have acted in good faith here. BootsED (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The easiest solution is to cite review sources, if they exist - do they? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

You've been run around a bit, which isn't very fair, but it doesn't justify engaging in original research. The reason this is original research is because these journal articles are primary sources, and taking multiple together to extrapolate conclusions not made in such sources is synthesis. We need to use secondary sources to make such claims, such as review articles. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I have multiple (10) news articles such as this one from the NYT or this one from WaPo that provide further, explicit statements that Trump has engaged in fearmongering, vitriol, and ecetera against immigrants and minorities, not counting the roughly one dozen peer-reviewed journal articles that all state the same conclusion. These are not opinion pieces, but actual news articles and articles labeled as "analysis". I can get lots of opinion pieces too (obviously in this case!). Do these count as reliable secondary sources? If not I am unsure what you are specifically referring to as "review sources". I can even get book reviews if you need them or roundtable discussions with scholars posted in academic journals. I am not engaging in original research, as this is well documented, but if I need even more citations that is not an issue on my part and is simply a chore on my end to satisfy the requirements of the editors on this page. BootsED (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm occupied at the moment so won't be able to comment further for a bit, but review articles are a type of journal article that assesses scholarly consensus. Some examples of journals publishing these are Political Studies Review or the American Political Science Review. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually, some of the sources in my edits are from those two journals. I believe some of the sources I am using are already review articles, although I am a bit confused as each site seems to have its own labels. It's late for me right now but I will do some more digging into this later. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. BootsED (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Good morning. I only had ten minutes this morning but have already found one review article and that at least one of the articles I have used so far are classified as a review article by Google scholar. Other sources that were used have sections dedicated at the beginning to review existing literature, but are not listed as review articles. However, I've noticed that several publishers do not provide an option to search by review articles, and some list review articles as simply "article" which also has non-review articles on them. Other non-review articles contain sections that review existing literature. So this makes it confusing to say the least. BootsED (talk) 13:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Access is a poor justification for removal, my bad. (Bustinza & Witkowski seems to be an observational study, not a review, but you're welcome to add it back in.) Per WP:INTEXT, it is bad form to directly quote a researcher without attribution, otherwise the wiki could be plagiarizing. Your edit added Research has identified Trump's rhetoric as heavily using vitriol, demeaning language, false equivalency, exclusion. Dr. Stuckey wrote He depends heavily on vitriol, primarily using demeaning language, false equivalency, and exclusion. I believe the final study you provided, used in the sentence beginning wih Jacobson (please note spelling), and attributed to "other researchers," has aspects of a review but we should keep looking. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that was the source I saw pop up as a review article when I did more searching this morning. I can't check right now as I am not at my computer. I likely won't be able to work on this further until later this week as I have a full-time job, (un)fortunately. BootsED (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Just an update, I spent a few hours this weekend and found some more good more review articles on this topic. I also found some other good review articles and sources that can be used on this page to remove some lower-quality sources we have now. I will hopefully be able to update the page sometime later this week. BootsED (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Just another update, will hopefully be able to post an updated edit here soon. Have been distracted with other things in real life and on Wikipedia. Replying to keep this talk page section from auto-archiving. BootsED (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Another post to prevent auto-archiving. Sorry for the wait. I've found a bunch of good sources in the meantime for other aspects of this page. BootsED (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Use of explanatory footnotes in lead

This is more of a general formatting query, but edits like this have removed the explanatory footnotes from the lead, noting major legislature and policy. As the lead is clearly being condensed in preparation for his second term, it is important we do not miss out key details; I thought the use of efn's was a smart and neat way around this, it is important the lead doesn't completely gloss over such information and demand the reader find it for themselves. Mb2437 (talk) 12:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section is the appropriate place to make enquiries of this sort. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Forwarded this discussion to that talk page. Mb2437 (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

You inadvertently linked to a version of the article, rather than to the edit that created that version. Here's a link to the edit.

The question is whether the names of Trump's three appointees to the Supreme Court should be given in an explanatory footnote in the lead. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, here are the other removals the user made: [27] [28] [29]. Mb2437 (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Lead footnotes added 4 templates to our total. They repeated generally-known information almost verbatim. None were cited. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of the lead is to summarise the body, the removal of that information gives an incomplete analysis. Some of these edits have removed entire sections of the article from mention in the lead. The fact it is generally-known supports its conclusion as notable information, and all of it is cited in the body so does not need citations here. Mb2437 (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Mb2437, you should know that most readers who read the lede do not read the footnotes. Many think they're just references. If an article summary is fundamentally incomplete without this content, it should not be in a footnote. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Change it to a tagged note then:

My point is that it is an incomplete summary with such content stripped—especially examples of legislature to go with points such as "he rolled back more than 100 environmental policies and regulations"—but the lead requires trimming to stay within a reasonable length. Moving such information to an efn doesn't impede the reader, who may choose to avoid it, or the totality of the summary. The other options are to strip the lead of all individual acts and policy, or to expand the lead to 1,000+ (immediately visible) words. Mb2437 (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The tagged note is a lot better, great idea.

I am interested to see how it applies the manual of style's comments on ledes more than any other consideration, although I appreciating you stepping it out more. If you could go further and answer a question that occurs to me, many other presidents pages are featured articles. After lots of scrutiny to ensure they are very high-quality, their leads have been judged to summarize sufficiently without footnotes. Do you think there is something unique to Trump? Do you think all these pages insufficiently summarize? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

As a reader, I would not expect to see the names of Trump's appointees to the Supreme Court in the lead. As a reader of the news, I know that his appointments were newsworthy, and the lead should certainly mention that he made them. But the actual names of them, that's the sort of thing to leave for the main body of the article.

The heavy emphasis in MOS:LEAD is not on what you must include, but on what you must leave out. The article is long, and is going to get longer, but the lead is short, and is not going to get longer. By the end of Trump's second term, even more stuff will be left out of the lead than is left out now.

Putting material in a tagged note is not leaving it out. Of course, it's not unheard of for the lead section to have tagged notes. For example, sometimes tagged notes are used to tell how to pronounce the person's name. (Don't need that for this article, I guess.) But this mechanism has to be used judiciously. The boundary between what belongs in the lead, and what has to be moved out to the main article, is important, and the use of tagged notes doesn't move that boundary. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The Supreme Court nominees probably shouldn't be listed, I'm more concerned about the omission of all policy. Well-publicized recent events affecting a subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective, per WP:LEADBIO. The excessive focus on words and not policy that has genuine historical implications doesn't serve much encyclopaedic value. Mb2437 (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mb2437 makes sense to me I agree JaneenGingerich (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mb2437 this guy could do it better JaneenGingerich (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the compliment, but I'm by no means stating I should write it; Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and we're working towards an amicable solution. Please don't spam replies, one suffices. Mb2437 (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mb2437 makes sense to me JaneenGingerich (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Mb2437, I agree with WP:LEADBIO. If something is that important, it should be readily accessible up front in the lead. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The lead summarizes the most important contents of the article. If parts of the summary need explanatory notes, they're either incomplete or not important enough to be included in the lead. We used to have one efn to explain the electoral college to readers not familiar with the U.S. presidential election (of course, that clause — won the election while losing the national popular vote — has also been deleted as unimportant); IMO that's an exception and a valid reason for having a footnote. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

This exception was distracting because the US method can't be reduced to a single sentence. See how it hedges in parentheses? "Presidential elections in the U.S. are decided by the Electoral College. Each state names a number of electors equal to its representation in Congress and (in most states) all electors vote for the winner of their state's popular vote." I support an addition to the 2016 election results. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I saw the note at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Explanatory footnotes in Donald Trump lead.

Generally speaking, if a detail is not important enough to be put in plaintext in the lead, then it's not important enough to add a footnote that contains those details. We call them "explanatory" footnotes because they are supposed to contain an actual "explanation". An explanation might sound like "Like all other articles about US presidents, this one refers to 'Trump' instead of 'President Trump' throughout, because it is more concise". An explanation does not sound like "In case you were looking for this exact detail, the names of the 'three people' mentioned in this sentence are Alice, Bob, and Chris."

If the goal is to make it easier for people to find the names, then that sentence could link to Donald Trump Supreme Court candidates. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The SC noms are the least concerning points trimmed, it's more about crucial policies that are being cut out that give an incomplete summary. Mb2437 (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The point was made that if something is crucial to understanding, it should be spelled out in the lead (not put in a footnote. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Exactly what I meant. If it's necessary, then don't hide it in a footnote. If it's not necessary, then don't clutter up the lead with markers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Mb2437, the international agreements deserved the note. I am restoring those since they have a completelly different pourpouse that giving out the names of the judged, without it you do not know what kind of agreements we are talking about at all. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Goszei what do you think about the usage of the note here? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I think a note for the agreements is appropriate. I don't think notes are useful for the popular vote or Supreme Court nominee cases, however; they could be replaced with links to List of United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote or Donald Trump Supreme Court candidates if necessary. — Goszei (talk) 04:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

What do you make of the input of those who came across from MOS:LEAD? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

"Several international agreements" is too vague (he didn't withdraw from them purely because they were international), and the listing outside of a note is too long. However, I think the note is useful because there is a theme which emerges from the list – his nationalist and protectionist politics, which this paragraph of the lead is seeking to explain (his basic argument for withdrawal from the first two was economic first and sovereignty-related second, and the third shows his diplomatic approach just as much as the North Korean part of the paragraph shows). The note therefore ties well into the rest of the paragraph and serves as an useful explanation (contrary to WhatamIdoing's argument), and isn't a simple listing like the three Supreme Court justices. — Goszei (talk) 05:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

In short, I think the note explains what Trump's much-discussed "America First" principle means in practice. — Goszei (talk) 05:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

If "several international agreements" is misleading, then you are accepting that any readers who don't click the footnote (most) will be misled.

Cinemaandpolitics could you self-revert? Most of the editors participating here have voiced opposition to the way footnotes are being used in the lede here, including everyone who came in from outside (I'm not sure if Bruce came from the link), so your restoration appears to be against consensus. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say it was misleading without the footnote, just vague and worth a few words more explanation in a way I think that a footnote does well. There are in fact valid use cases for explanatory footnotes in leads, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. All that said, my support for this particular case is pretty mild. — Goszei (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Can't you guys just say what's important for the reader to know? I.e., ...withdrew the U.S. from international agreements on climate, trade, and the nuclear program of Iran. Cinemaandpolitics, you're going against consensus. Why is this so hard? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Cinemaandpolitics has not edited after Rolling's request for self-revert. If you're certain you're on solid ground, you are well within policy to revert them. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@SusanLesch @Rollinginhisgrave

Like Goszei explained there is a difference on the usage of the footnote for the judges and for the agreements. It was also explained why it is specifically relevant. @Rollinginhisgrave @Goszei Would you agree to take those informations out of the note in the way that @SusanLesch suggested, with links to the appropriate pages?

Hardly a consensus with the amount of editors involved as of now. @Mandruss what is your opinion? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

None. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Then my suggestion is to open another separate discussion to get more editors involved. Removing things like this from the lead shouldn't be a matter of 5 people. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Now I have an opinion. "Another separate discussion" will make no difference unless it's an RfC. Per WP:RFCBEFORE, an RfC should not be started unless no consensus has been reached after some undefined reasonable amount of time. According to at least two experienced editors here, we have a consensus here, albeit a weak one. That said, I don't see a problem with leaving this discussion open until (1) someone chooses to do an uninvolved closure, or (2) the thread is idle for 7 days and gets auto-archived. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that this discussion started with different elements on the lead on its scope. Down to the last comments the reasoning to remove those footnote was mixing those different instances. Let's see how the other answers here, then. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The intention of this was to open a discussion about how we can trim the lead to an appropriate (visible) length, without completing stripping it of its content (policy and legislature). MB2437 15:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Fair, even though I feel like the lenght of the lead right now is very appropriate.

Maybe the three international deals on the footnote could find a spot near the other same theme bits? Paris agreement with 100 environmental policies, iran nuclear with north korea meeting, Trans pacific with trade war with China? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Cinemaandpolitics "Like Goszei explained there is a difference on the usage of the footnote for the judges and for the agreements." No editor here has responded simply to footnotes for judges, they have all expressed replied to the practice of footnotes in this lede, expressing sentiments of generally "if something is not important enough for the lead it is not important enough for a footnote." From my read, there are 5 opposed, including 2 from outside, and 3 in favor, including none from outside. I am sympathetic to your position, but a key aspect of the lede is its hard cap on length, unlike any other section. There is good reason for this hard cap, it is fundamental to the lede's purpose of being a brief summary for the limited time many readers afford. These footnotes, if they are necessary for understanding, must be considered part of the length. If they are not necessary, then they should not be in the lede. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies Goszei, I read "he didn't withdraw from them purely because they were international" as saying the text was implying that, inaccurately. ~~ Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Your rationale just changed (this didn't start out anything to do with the lead's length). Another discussion is a waste of everyone's time except those who wish to overturn consensus. Perhaps an adult here will concede the point, MB, or is that out of fashion? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Per the OP: As the lead is clearly being condensed in preparation for his second term, it is important we do not miss out key details. An adult here wouldn't make a PA because they're unhappy someone disagrees with them. MB2437 16:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

What is a PA? An OP? -SusanLesch (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Personal attack and Original Poster. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

And sorry if I misunderstood a shift in direction. Today you write The intention of this was to open a discussion about how we can trim the lead to an appropriate (visible) length, without completing stripping it of its content (policy and legislature). Your original point, and the topic of this thread is how clever footnotes are (rather than the length of the lead). -SusanLesch (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

We're all doing our best here. You lost the argument. How about you make an edit now? I gave you a plausible solution: ...withdrew the U.S. from international agreements on climate, trade, and the nuclear program of Iran. I would have done it yesterday but I think it's up to you to demonstrate understanding of what we're telling you. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Mandruss, can you please archive this one? Sorry I lost my patience. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Not without the OP's consent. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I proceeded to edit this in. I am glad you made a proposition. Better then discussing footnotes as a technicality in my opinion. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 12:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed split: Political policies of Donald Trump

Political policies of Donald Trump would be a more specified article to keep Trump's policies in, so we can give a broad overview of them here and a proportionally broader look in both presidency articles. Perhaps this would work best as an offshoot of Political career of Donald Trump? BarntToust 15:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

or Political positions of Donald Trump? Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Specifically, just all the content of his policies. We can cover all we want about his project 2025 or whatever in that one. BarntToust 15:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I feel his positions are an offshoot of his career, and that Political policies would be another good child. Actually, lots of his policies are BarntToust 15:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Which raises a good question: Should the Political positions article be more oriented towards his stances on the various subjects he has stances on, and this proposed split more centred on the policies he enacted/will enact as part of his career. BarntToust 15:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

already exists (trumpism) 49.3.5.196 (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

that's really a broader political movement, not a set of political policies Trump enacted while in office. BarntToust 22:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

And if it were made people would change the title to 'political polices of orange man' and not many people have the ability to lock pages 49.3.5.196 (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Tell you what, IP, if Orange man presidency 2 isn't redlinked by morning, you'll have a point. BarntToust 00:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah this proves it's a good idea to make the article as there's no major risks. 49.3.5.196 (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

only mentioned it would need protecting because of when Trump won. people kept changing his name to count dooku and other things 49.3.5.196 (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense. Also it helps with more specific search answers 209.64.100.10 (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems like a good idea at the moment. We already have a lot of his stuff in separate articles (side ventures, nicknames, his tenure, etc.) It honestly wouldn't hurt. Besides who is count dooku? About vandalizing, set it to the "edits need to be approved" level of protection. If it gets worse, use Extended confirmed. 2601:483:400:1CD0:59C4:F6D6:B65B:805A (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to have new material incorporated into existing article found here: Political positions of Donald Trump ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

---

Political policies of Donald Trump would ideally be sectioned into subsections on content found in the First Trump presidency, and content to be found in the Second Trump presidency, where the various policies he enacted during the courses of each would be detailed.

Political positions of Donald Trump would ideally be refocused to be about Trump's opinions on the various topics he has opinions on, and the content of that article can detail how those opinions are reflected on him, how those opinions influence his political actions, including but not limited to enacting policies reflective of these ideals, and other relevant information. BarntToust 16:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Seems to me that you're not proposing a split but a new article on Trump's opinions. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Essentially, yes. It's a tad complex, but yes, in practice I'm proposing a new article and a refocus on content in another. BarntToust 16:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

BarntToust Could you write a quick knock-up at Draft:Political policies of Donald Trump? I am quite confused about this new article's scope. Further, I'm not sure what splitting off content about the First presidency would achieve: it should be a summary of First presidency of Donald Trump. Any issues with length should be addressed at that article. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Question, how would this be different from Trumpism? ✶Quxyz✶ 00:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Already asked by IP editor. ✶Quxyz✶ 00:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Quxyz: Question, why were you talking about a irrelevant topic? We are supposed to be talking about his policies, not the ideologies. 2601:483:400:1CD0:59C4:F6D6:B65B:805A (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Votes

I would support splitting this article. We’re already at 400+ kb. It should have been split a long time ago. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

We already have a strategy for addressing article size: greater embrace of summary style. So article size is a poor argument for any split of this article. That said, I haven't seen the progress I expected in recent weeks; the few editors with the necessary experience and skills (not I) seem otherwise occupied. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. WorldMappings (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Off topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Definitely include President Biden being the first President in US history to pardon a family member (his son was pardoned all the way back to his beginnings at Burisma, 2011) charged with multiple felonies and millions of dollars in tax evasion. That could show a balance between the DOJ Already being politically weaponized or the DOJ Will be politically weaponized under the incoming president. This adds a lot to Trump's political reasoning on certain federal departments' motives. A look into the beast, so to speak. 104.230.247.132 (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC) That’s not exactly relevant to Trump; maybe put that in the Biden article? Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 19:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose split. What are "political policies"? If we are talking about his political positions, we have Political positions of Donald Trump. If we are talking about his policies, we have Political career of Donald Trump (and its sub-articles First presidency of Donald Trump and Second presidency of Donald Trump). If we are talking about his ideology or political movement, we have Trumpism. I don't see what niche the proposed article would fill that isn't already covered. — Goszei (talk) 05:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - For starters "political policies" is ridiculous redundant phrasing. Separate articles already exist for his first administration's economic policy, social policy, and foreign policy. No need to create yet another article about his policies. A split may be necessary but this isn't the solution. --estar8806 (talk) ★ 03:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Political policies, what kind of Deepak Chopra mumbo-jumbo is that? Policy is the actual or proposed implementation of political philosophy and principles, the phrasing of political policies is about as coherent as the phrase thoughtful thinking. From that alone, I can already sense that the stench of bullocks is strong with this split proposal. Upon further inspection, I feel that such initial hunch of mine was right. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - are we all still making a encyclopaedia? or is it now just reddit of opinions and propoganda from mainstream TV news. ~ Smellymoo 13:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

bump 24.233.108.171 (talk) 06:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Not only there are already other more specific pages, but this has the only usage of giving people yet another reason to not include very relevant informations on the main page.Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Strongly Accept: If I may boldly say, there is already plenty of relevant information on the page. We have his tenure, assassination attempts, side ventures, nicknames, the scandal. Also, Smellymoo, this has clear references from fact-checkable, verifiable, and credible sources. 2601:483:400:1CD0:25E9:1076:C813:F5F6 (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose We have plenty of articles where this can go (if we need it), If the article is too big, move content or summarise it in a way that reduces the word count but keeps the nuance. Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose EarthDude (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Support: The article is too long, therefore it makes sense to split his policies from the main article. However, IF the article is SPLIT, write a brief summary of what his policies were in his first term (it is likely going to stay the same in his 2nd term because he won). ZayKitty Wiki (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support We need to adhere to WP:SUMMARY STYLE, and splitting would greatly help. ~ HAL333 18:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose I would oppose this change for the time being. I'm not sure how different it would be from political positions of Donald Trump, and I can see a bunch of potential overlap between the two that causes confusion about what goes where. I think what we have right now works. BootsED (talk) 06:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Fake electors plot

Why is there no mention of the Eastman memos or the fake electors scheme in here? Seems very important Zzendaya (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Huh, I would've thought this article would have included that. Maybe it did at one point and was cut? We have issues with WP:ARTICLESIZE here. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. Just that those are central themes in the indictments surrounding overturning the election results. Doesn't seem appropriate to leave them out. Zzendaya (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

He was never convicted of any of it is the issue. All those cases are over. Liger404 (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Also now the Democrats are trying to deny the election results, not the Republicans. 2601:483:400:1CD0:25E9:1076:C813:F5F6 (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Article does not follow policy guidelines.

I am going to copy and paste a previous argument I made because they closed my other discussion. On this whole article, I see one point of view. That Trump was a bad president and did pretty much nothing good during his presidency. On the whole article, not only is the way in which it was written not from a neutral point of view and makes untrue statements (which is what I addressed with my proposed changes), it doesn't align with the policy "Articles must fairly represent all significant points of view that have been published by reliable sources." as is required in the NPOV policy (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) I can quote some points of view that have not been fairly listed along with the negative ones in the article. "The economy grew at a rate of 4.2 percent, the fastest pace in nearly four years" — The Wall Street Journal. "The tax cuts have brought economic growth, higher wages, and more investment into our economy" — The Washington Post. "The First Step Act is a step forward for criminal justice reform that is long overdue" — The New York Times.

Sources: Employment Situation Summary." U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Dec. 2019, www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm.

Piel, Matthew. "How the Tax Cuts Are Boosting the Economy." The Washington Post, 15 Jan. 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/tax-cuts-economic-growth.

Smith, John. "Trump Signs Landmark Criminal Justice Reform Bill." The New York Times, 21 Dec. 2018, www.nytimes.com/trump-first-step-act. Charles337 (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Your edit request was closed for a reason. This 'bias' argument has run its course. see Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 19:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

You didn't reply to any claims I made, or the obvious infraction of Wikipedia policy that is being made. 2603:8081:4100:7A0F:880E:B6BB:530F:6D84 (talk) 20:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

"We say content is biased if it doesn't have a neutral point of view, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."- Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. Yes, this is the NPOV policy I already talked about. There are numerous and very significant points of view not represented in the Donald Trump article which are published by reliable sources (I gave examples of these above) these reasons are a very big part of why over half of the United States Of America's citizens voted him in for office for the second time, and yet I do not see any of these views represented. 2603:8081:4100:7A0F:880E:B6BB:530F:6D84 (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, to be accurate he received less than 50% of the vote and about 32% of eligible voters. He won the popular vote by less than Hillary Clinton. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

He got 49.99% of the vote, Kamala Harris received 48.4% of the vote. Regardless, it doesn't matter. There are still numerous significant views published by reliable sources, not represented fairly in the article. Charles337 (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

We know that. Point is 32% of eligible Americans voted for him, not over half of the United States Of America's citizens as stated. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a good point. You're right. But it's completely irrelevant, and you didn't address my actual argument. The majority of people who voted, voted for him.* Charles337 (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

If you can read that part can you at least agree this article is in violation of the NPOV policy? I understand you may have political views, but a lot of Americans already believe media is biased and I don't want Wikipedia to be lumped in with the rest. Charles337 (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

My political views are completely irrelevant. No, it is not an NPOV vio as explained at the link you were given. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Your original reply was a clear case of whataboutism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism) and yes it is, the link I was given says "We say content is biased if it doesn't have a neutral point of view, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." my argument is that the article does not fairly represent all significant points of view published by reliable sources. I listed reliable sources and points of view not fairly represented in the article. Tell me why I am wrong, not just that I am. Charles337 (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Is is quite clear that only you wish to push an agenda in this conversation and falsely spread the notion and have refused to listen to the Wikipedians who have been rightfully telling you that this is not a NPOV violation, it's explained in the bias section of the talk page. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course you cannot represent all significant points of view, but you need to represent points of views that are published by reputable sources fairly. This is clearly not done in the Donald Trump article. Charles337 (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Maggie Haberman gave a great summary in her 2022 book p. 5:

By the end of his presidency, he had assembled a record of historical consequence, changing the Republican Party's policy orientation toward anti-interventionism, nativism, and confrontation with China. He had accumulated a list of legacy accomplishments, including a dramatic reshaping of the U.S. Supreme Court with conservative appointees, a revision of the tax code, peace accords in the Middle East, and an economy that his predecessor had rebuilt and which Trump grew, with record low unemployment numbers. But none seemed as significant to him as the prize he lost—a second term.

Hope this helps. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Your excerpt seems rather cherry-picked given the title of the source: Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America, wherein the author states:

Haberman portrays Trump as president as childlike, easily influenced by flattery, obsessed with trivialities, unwilling to engage with the details, and dismissive of advice. Accordingly, the executive branch was "subject to the president's whims and moods, his ideas about friends and enemies", and that he "reoriented an entire country to react to his moods and emotions". Haberman concludes that Trump is "a narcissistic drama-seeker who covered a fragile ego with a bullying impulse".

If we include your addition we must include both for neutrality. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

What you are quoting is not the other side of his political legacy. It is more about temperament while in office. It may be included in a section on political practice if it is given appropriate weight there. The only part speaking to his political legacy is "reoriented an entire country to react to his mood and emotions": without elaboration this is too vague to include and is probably best served as an elaboration of a section on temperament if at all. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

No need to quote "both sides" from Haberman. She just was able to write a clear, positive paragraph about his presidency, something to keep in mind. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

That would be out of context. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Some people are able to say something nice about Mr. Trump. Keep that in mind. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course they are. Some people think he is the Second Coming (literally). But Haberman's book is 608 pages covering 49 years of Trump's history. It would be a highly misleading interpretation of her reporting to include that lone paragraph. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Who wants to add a whole paragraph from Haberman? That's WP:UNDUE. I posted it because we might learn from her. For example, the lead doesn't mention that Mr. Trump built a conservative SCOTUS majority (a pretty significant achievement). -SusanLesch (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

And trust in SCOTUS has dropped 24% since then. From 68% in 2019 to 44% in August 2024. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Trust in all major institutions, media and the government are at record lows. Maybe include some stats that not every 8 year old isn't already aware of? Thanks. 104.230.247.132 (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I apologize. I was not aware that every 8 year old knew trust in SCOTUS has dropped 24%, from 68% in 2019 to 44% in August 2024. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Susan, because I'm a bit unclear on this, how do you see this as able to be employed to further a neutral point of view? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm out of this discussion. After reading that Haberman paragraph I realized that it is possible to present Trump's presidency in terms achievements, not only negatives, as we appear to do in the lead third paragraph. Sorry I can't be of help today. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

It's ok. But to the rest of you guys, I kind of agree with Rollinginhisgrave, how can we make this a neutral point of view if there is no neutrality? It would go against Wikipedia then. 2601:483:400:1CD0:25E9:1076:C813:F5F6 (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Project 2025 & Agenda 47

Make sure to draw attention to Project 2025 & Agenda 47. ColsenJohnSemplr (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

what, that Trump is against Project 2025? "The Trump campaign said the project’s demise 'would be greatly welcomed.' " - New York Times ~ Smellymoo 18:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Trump isn't officially associated with P 2025 and has disowned it. We can't include it here. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Well then again though, Project 2025 (also known as the 2025 Presidential Transition Project) is a political initiative published in April 2022 by the American conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation. The project aims to promote conservative and right-wing policies to reshape the federal government of the United States and consolidate executive power, originally under the premise that Donald Trump wins the 2024 presidential election. Turtletennisfogwheat has a point. 2601:483:400:1CD0:25E9:1076:C813:F5F6 (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

When he does we can, but not until he does. Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Judge agrees to dismiss Donald Trump's 2020 election interference case

Judge agrees to dismiss Donald Trump's 2020 election interference case

Not sure if this is already in the the article so fyi in case you want to put it in. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

doesn't this mean he isn't a convict/felon and that allegation needs removing? ~ Smellymoo 18:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

No, because his felony convictions stem from the falsifying business records case (aka Stormy Daniel’s hush money case), this is one of the other cases that had not yet been ruled on. Storm0005 (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if he will self pardon or else the past doesn't change. Facts are facts. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

2nd US president to serve non-consecutive terms

Shouldnt this be in the lead? FMSky (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 181#Statistic and Grover Cleveland in the lead. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Considering that he hasn't served two terms yet, no. He and Cleveland are the two people to have been elected to non-consecutive terms, but only Cleveland has served non-consecutive terms. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Suggest, "He is only the second president to be elected to serve non-consecutive terms." Bob K31416 (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Why not "47th President of the United States" instead of "President-elect of the United States"

It looks like it is appearing to say that he will become the President-elect on January 20, not the President. Vlklng (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you talking about the infobox? This is due to the silliness of filling out listings for things that haven't happened yet. Technically he isn't even the president-elect yet, as the Electoral College hasn't met. But he definitely isn't president yet. He is the presumptive president-elect and is scheduled to be inaugurated as president on 20 January 2025.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 00:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

You're joking right? He's not inaugurated yet. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

clearly you haven’t read what i said Vlklng (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. But yeah maybe it should be changed. As Khaj stated above, he's not even president-elect yet, the electoral college hasn't met Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

There are a slurry of articles describing him incorrectly.

For political science's sake, it should be addressed with specific electoral college facts, for the kids at home.

just a thought, Augmented Seventh (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Assassination attempts

I was reading the article, and noticed the words Thomas Matthew Crooks and Ryan Wesley Routh appear ZERO times in this article. Is there a particular reason for this? Trump was millimeters away from the unthinkable on July 13, 2024. I strongly believe the assassination attempt deserves its own section, with links to their respective main articles. President Reagan's and Roosevelt have their own section on attempted assassinations, in detail with links to the main articles. The same should go for Trump. I'm not trying to be rude, I'm genuinely curious and would like an answer or explanation as to why that same standard is not held to Trump's article. 132.170.212.77 (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking at retrospectives on the 2024 election done by reliable sources, this may be eligible for marginally more emphasis, but was not the primary focus. Until we have better retrospectives which allow us to place it in perspective of his political career better, such as scholarly retrospectives of the election or biographies, this is metric we have for determining how much emphasis to place. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of the political campaign, I'm pretty sure that the assassination attempts are important enough to have their own category. And why "marginally" more? Why can't they have their own eloquent paragraphical sections like this or this? I think it's ridiculous how there is zero mention of the perpetrators' names (especially Crooks who injured Trump) in the article.

Covering the assassinations decently enough doesn't have to depend on retrospectives of the 2024 election in my opinion, the fact that Trump got injured in one attempt by Thomas Crooks is a fact (not to mention the Routh situation) that doesn't have to depend on scholars and historians looking back years from now. And it's not political or controversial to include such a statement, as they are facts. 132.170.212.77 (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Because we reflect the emphasis placed by reliable sources. In those cases, apparently reliable sources placed more emphasis than here. The lack of sustained coverage of Trump's assassination attempts has been noted [30]. It doesn't depend on what we think is important, as you are making a case for here. As I said, it may be expanded marginally, if Thomas Crook being the perpetrator is what they emphasise about, that is how it should be expanded. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, media bias (as exhibited by lack of coverage) should definitely dictate what goes on Wikipedia! 132.170.46.162 (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• Let us think plainly: is the fact that he was assassinated, is that not more important than a dude named "Crooks" and a guy named "Wesley"? The existence of a bullied teenager, and the existence of a wannabe Ukraine war recruiter are both about as relevant to Trump as the price of weed in california: what remains the actual affecting part was that he had attempts against his life. BarntToust 15:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Reagan lost over half his blood volume and was not considered recovered for six months. Trump's wound was superficial and he was back on the campaign trail two days later. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The perpetrators are not important, the assassination attempts are. They meet Wikipedia noteworthiness guidelines. It happened, it's provable, and it's noteworthy, it's useful in an encyclopaedia. ~ Smellymoo 18:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why you are replying to me. I agree with your position. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

2024 election popular vote trivia

The paragraph about the 2024 election states "The first Republican to win the popular vote since 2004, as of November 29, Trump did so with 49.83% of the popular vote and a margin of 1.55% over his opponent, the third-smallest since 1888." I would suggest removal of these twin factoids because they are trivia not widely discussed by reliable sources about Donald Trump and his 2024 election victory. They are also both misleading: the first one because he is the first Republican to win a presidential election at all since 2004, and the second one because there are candidates who have lost the popular vote and won the election who should be counted as having a negative popular vote margin of victory. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 16:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Given a lot of talk about his landslide, elsewhere, it seems to me that stating what his margin is rat5rher significnat. Afer all is that not what we do, present people with the information they need to judge? Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not objecting to stating the margin, I am objecting to the twin factoids of "first Republican to win the popular vote since 2004" and "third-smallest popular vote margin of victory since 1888". Also, your argument sounds like it is based on WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. As it says there, "we are, by design, supposed to be 'behind the curve.'" Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 16:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Bzweebl here. The margin can be included, but these factoids should not be, especially since the margin fact is misleading. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

A small note, the content at MOS:TRIVIA doesn't support this text being "trivia", it's referring to a different concept. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that the details are not MOS:TRIVIA. They are, however, frivolous and trivial. Riposte97 (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we include material you and I may consider frivolous and trivial so long as it reflects the emphasis in reliable sources. Our opinion on frivolity/triviality shouldn't come into it. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

In a presidential campaign, candidates apply their resources to winning electoral votes, not the popular vote. Trump won the election by a wide electoral vote margin of 312 to 226 [31]. I wasn't able to find this electoral college result anywhere in the article but here we are discussing putting in the article an item about the popular vote. Bob K31416 (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

a wide electoral vote margin Incorrect, per the data, which ranks the 2024 election in the lower third in terms of margin of victory. Harris' 226 E.V.s are the 7th-highest for a losing candidate. Characterizations of the race as "close," "landslide," or "a wide margin" are dabbling in fantasy. Zaathras (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

All vote totals will be certified "official" by all states on December 17th (thanks California, still counting, and counting, and counting, and counting). Only then will people be able to break down the popular vote by age, race, gender, etc, etc. Shifting voter demographics within parties (Democrat, Republican, and Independents) secured a historic win for Trump, one of the biggest political comebacks in US history.

Trump shifted almost the entire country right or conservative (49 out of 50 states) anywhere from 1-2% points up to 18% or more making even several Democratic stronghold states now competitive while at the same time sweeping all swing states. Self-identified independent voter turnout reached the highest on record, outperforming Democrats and tying with Republicans. The popular vote totals can be thoroughly dissected once the vote totals are certified official by all 50 states plus DC. Only then can 2024 election popular vote trivia be accurate. Cheers. 104.230.247.132 (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

We really can't have this discussion independent of reliable sources. We shouldn't try. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Zaathras, I was going by what the reliable source said, "... Trump had a fairly wide 312 to 226 Electoral College victory..." [32]. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for altering a lede sentence

The sentence "He promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics." is slightly problematic for several reasons.

First, the use of the word "many" is subjective, and redundant because the subsequent clause contextualises it with to an unprecedented degree. Both of these refer to the same concept (i.e. high/degree/number of statements relative to others in the field, by the word "unprecedented" and "degree"). Further, I believe it's appropriate to change it too:

"He promoted conspiracy theories and extensively made false and misleading statements..."

The term "extensively" would indicate that he made such an unprecedented degree of false misleading statements throughout his position, or at least over an extensive period. This detail would replace "many" and is uniquely important because such many false/misleading statements were not isolated to specific circumstances/time period. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposes to amend current consensus item 49. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Support in principle; I don't necessarily like the use of "extensively". Feels awkward. "...degree unprecedented" is not quantifiable; "many", not as problematic IMO but still non-quantifiable. Cessaune [talk] 16:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Support per Cessaune. R. G. Checkers ^talk 21:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose; it's very important for the lead to mention that the amount of false statements made by Trump is "to a degree unprecedented in American politics". The emergence of post-truth politics is an essential aspect of Trump's rise to power and the use of "extensively" does not imply "unprecedented". Loytra (talk) 10:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

You are arguing a strawman, as we support the removal of the term “many” because it’s redundant with “unprecedented degree”. The latter should be kept. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 10:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, apologies, I thought you had removed that part in your example sentence (I didn't notice the ellipses). I've stricken the comment. Loytra (talk) 10:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, and no problem! Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 11:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Support, in my opinion it's a valid request. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Early ties to criminals

Hi, Nikkimaria. I removed duplication and then strayed into overdetail which you reverted. Thank you. Per WP:BRD, to establish Trump's Mafia ties, how about I trim my addition like this? In §Real estate, Cohn was a consigliere whose Mafia connection controlled construction unions and helped Trump projects. In §Side ventures, In 1988, a soldier in the Colombo crime family customized Trump-branded limousines. We're still omitting a number of gangsters. In the meantime I'll work out the shortest possible way to explain the failed Trump-licensed seaside resorts. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on why you feel the Colombo piece warrants inclusion? The Cohn piece seems more directly relevant to Cohn. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd be satisfied to only mention Cohn's Mafia ties which directly benefited Trump. I can agree to omit the limousine modifier. Every one of my books mentions the Mafia in one context or another. The gist I get is that Trump didn't actively seek them out; he thought organized crime was just part of doing business in New York. We're already omitting Cody, Libutti, and Weichselbaum. The article also omits Felix Sater which should probably be corrected. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

List title of President-elect in intro paragraph?

Trump is currently the President-elect of the United States. That role, a constitutionally recognized position in which the officeholder must be given the means to take the oath of office on Inaguration Day, is more currently relevant than the fact he won the election so editors should consider listing him as the president-elect before listing he won the election, and since it is his current position, it is more relevant than his tenure as the 45th president.

Suggested paragraph:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the president-elect of the United States. He previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021 and is scheduled to be inaugurated again as the 47th president on January 20, 2025 as a result of his victory in the 2024 election.

--ECSNDY (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)-

I agree with this logic. Cessaune [talk] 17:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

The logic is fine but the implementation could be improved. Suggest: "is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the president-elect of the United States. He served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021 and is scheduled to be inaugurated as the 47th president on January 20, 2025." Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

New York Stock Exchange Bell

Hello fellow editors! I had an idea for an edit but it was suggested I should establish consensus first so I would love to hear all of your guys' thoughts on it first:

In the section labeled 2024 Presidential Campaign: I would suggest changing, the text, "In late 2024, Time (magazine) named Trump its Person of the Year." to "On December 12, 2024 Time (magazine) named Trump its Person of the Year. That same morning Trump rang the opening bell of the New York Stock Exchange for the first time."

In addition to the source already cited for that line I would also suggest citing the following 2 sources: https://apnews.com/article/trump-stock-exchange-time-nyse-bell-ringing-91a59ff0f4ce77c0c6f87e55a38c6c75

https://time.com/7201565/person-of-the-year-2024-donald-trump-transcript/

What are your guys' thoughts on this? Sincerely, Middle Mac CJM (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Seems a bit trivial really and just adds words to an already overly large article. Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand that the article is already quite lengthy but I feel like an individual ringing the New York Stock Exchange Bell is significant though. Middle Mac CJM (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Why? Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean we do not mention it on Miss Piggy's page. Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I guess I'm not really sure it just seemed like a novel thing that was interesting Middle Mac CJM (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Amazing the amount of WP:FART that people attempt to give weight to here, all the while large portions of the encyclopedia are ignored and/or unmaintained. So much for NPOV, WP:NOTNEWS and "the sum total of human knowledge". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Trivia, unworthy of inclusion. Zaathras (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 December 2024

Change "is an American politician, media personality, and businessman" to "is an American politician, media personality, crisis actor, and businessman" Doncuppjr (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

No --2A02:810D:BCBF:FD88:4054:7E4E:3F2D:4A57 (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Why is this article so negatively biased and not neutral?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Shouldn’t Trumps page not clearly be biased by people who hate him, but neutral, especially given that most Americans don’t agree with most of the negative views since he won by millions of voters? 2603:6080:F601:5E82:1577:5621:7CA2:B61F (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removed some details from sentence

I made an edit [33] that removed some details from a sentence,
The change was from this.

In June 2020, during the George Floyd protests, federal law-enforcement officials controversially used less lethal weapons to remove a largely peaceful crowd of lawful protesters from Lafayette Square, outside the White House.

to this,

In June 2020, during the George Floyd protests, federal law-enforcement officials removed protesters from Lafayette Square, outside the White House.

The edit was reverted [34]. I removed the details because I thought they were excessive and awkwardly presented. It was a matter of judgement. What do the reverting editor and others think? Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

They are also why this incident was notable. Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I think It was notable in the media because Trump came to nearby St. Johns church afterwards. Otherwise it would not have been related to Trump by the media and would just be another case of police removing protestors. For the sentence's context, see the last paragraph of the section Race relations. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The incident was notable because the police "controversially used less lethal weapons"?

I don't have the edit history but judging from the source used the title is "Barr personally ordered removal of protesters near White House, leading to use of force against largely peaceful crowd", and the text specifically says that there was "a directive that prompted a show of aggression against a crowd of largely peaceful protesters, drawing widespread condemnation". Nothing in the source says that "less lethal weapons" was controversial. I think someone else added in "less lethal weapons" at some point in the past that led to this confusion. I will remove the mention of "less lethal weapons" as it is not backed up by the provided source. BootsED (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)