Talk:Donald Trump

Seeing as Donald Trump relies so heavily on social media and much of the news about him concerns his statements on social media I find the wikipedia rule against sourcing social media ridiculous. Why would that rule exist? You people do realise social media makes up about a quarter of the internet anyway. Thats like making an internet dictionary about everything but wait we'll exclude the most popular stuff. At the very least we should be allowed to add his X account to the external links. Maybe not his facebook group as it is dead. http://www.facebook.com/groups/donaldtrump 202.86.32.122 (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sounds as though he was on the margin of death but he "sustained a minor injury during an assassination attempt". I'm aware of the ifs — if he hadn't turned his head, if the bullet's trajectory had been an inch or two further to the left/right, etc. — but he had and it wasn't. Thoughts on clarifying the description in the lead? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I say let 'em read further if they want clarification (flogging a comatose horse, lblinks would help in that regard). ―Mandruss ☎ 13:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Space4Time3Continuum2x, It appears that you are looking to add something to the lead that suggests Trump wasn't in danger. Is that what this section is about? Bob K31416 (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, "assassination attempt" kind of suggests mortal danger. But there's a difference between, e.g., the injuries Reagan sustained during the attempt on his life and the injury Trump sustained. Also, we'll never know the exact nature of the injury unless they release the records of his treatment at Butler Memorial Hospital, so we'll never know. Ronny Jackson's version is worth as much as his medical evaluation of Trump in 2018 — "incredibly good genes ... if he had a healthier diet over the last 20 years, he might live to be 200 years old ". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

You could make an addition to the end of,

"In July 2024, he survived an assassination attempt at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania."

to change to,

"In July 2024, he survived an assassination attempt at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania where he was wounded in the ear by gunfire."

This addition is what is in the body of the article [1] and appears to satisfy what you say you are looking for. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

You're a far left lunatic, please shut up and stop pretending your talking in good faith. 108.53.75.9 (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

IMO we shouldn't mention it at all. Doesn't seem that it will have significant consequences. Events in this lede compete with a wide variety of events that might be included, and it's already long. Things can be very "historic" without being notable enough. One example is the Wagner Group rebellion, an astonishing and extremely historic event in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has correctly fallen out of the lede there because it had no effect on the course of the war and is outshown by other events. During the rebellion it seemed endlessly important, now it's a footnote. I think if we project a little bit into the future, try for some perspective, the assassination attempt is not a top-25 sentence for an article about our subject's life. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

FYI, In the article we currently have [3], "...Trump was wounded on the ear by gunfire...". Bob K31416 (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

So looking at my previous suggestion of 13:20, 21 July 2024 for the lead, just change "in the ear" to "on the ear". Bob K31416 (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh, you're back to the lead again. It's almost like that's the topic of this thread. I'm still at I say let 'em read further if they want clarification. I'm sure you're aware that existence in the body is a poor argument for addition to the overlong lead. I get that that's not what you're saying; rather you're saying "If we add clarification to the lead, here's a good way to do it." ―Mandruss ☎ 21:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

SPECIFICO, you removed the sentence in this edit. Did your editsum in this edit (I intended to remove this UNDUE AND RECENTISM bit, not to change paragraph break) refer to that removal? Then you removed the "insignificant RECENTISM detail covered on other WP pages" in this edit, whereupon I deleted the "assassination" subsection heading and moved the one remaining sentence into the 2024 campaign section. Another editor reverted the removal from the lead with the editsum "extremely notable and well sourced in the body". So now we have this current body text:

On July 13, 2024, Trump was wounded on the ear by gunfire at a campaign rally in Butler Township, Butler County, Pennsylvania.^[1][2]

And this current lead text:

In July 2024, he survived an assassination attempt at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania.

Doesn't quite add up to "the lead section is ... a summary of its most important contents". What do we do?

Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Greetings from planet Earth. I think the whole thing is RECENTISM and insignificant in Trump's life story. Also the revert of my removal on the grounds that it is well-source is contrary to ONUS for this recent content. The earshot should stay off this article page until such time as there's consensus for inclusion. Which currently is not evident. We're all glad his ear healed so well, but in terms of DUE encyclopedia content, this has already gone the way of his Georgia booking pose and other silly stuff. SPECIFICO talk 16:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

This seems like overcoverage for the lead. I don't think it merits any mention there. Gerald Ford had two assassination attempts against him while he was president; while he wasn't wounded in either the impact on his biography is similar and those don't rate mention in his lead. That's the best analogy I can think of as to whether this passes the 10YT to the extent that it's leadworthy. VQuakr (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree entirely with SPECIFICO and VQuakr - DFlhb (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The second (briefer) sentence would be a preference. Mentioning the event at all? optional. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I, also, agree entirely with SPECIFICO and VQuakr. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

It should be in the lead and body. One sentence at the end of the lead is fine and im sure a couple sentences in the body is fine. Its well covered by RS and still talked about, should be no issue with the 10YT. PackMecEng (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean by talked about? Who, where? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sure, so RS talking about the attempt. In the past week PBS, NYT, CNN, and the Washington Post have all had articles on the topic. PackMecEng (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with PackMecEng. Even though the bullet barely touched his ear, yet enough to draw blood, it's still an assassination attempt, and that's a very notable event that should be mentioned in the lead. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure that WP:RECENTISM applies to once sentence, but until the FBI releases its report we won't know what exactly happened. An AR-15 bullet whizzing past his ear, a bleeding skin wound that had stopped bleeding by the time the Secret Service walked Trump off he stage (not a drop of blood on his white shirt collar) and healed without so much as leaving a scar — "survived" just seems inflated compared with Reagan's punctured lung and internal bleeding. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lets ignore the baseless conspiracy theories you are pushing here. It looks like your argument breaks down to you thinking this assassination attemped was not successful enough? That is not a convincing argument in the face of what RS say about it. PackMecEng (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Gee, thanks. WP:AGF. I'm objecting to the verb, not the mention of the assassination attempt. And, again, In the past week PBS, NYT, CNN, and the Washington Post have all had articles on the topic - urls, please, you know, for verification. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey if it quacks like a duck its probably a duck. You are spouting unsourced theories that go contrary to pretty much all reliable sources. Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me...

PBS, NYT, CNN, and Washington Post. Plus tons more recently because of the release of bodycam video. But also here is a hint for the future, if you search a topic go to the news tab in google, under tools you can select how recent of sources you want. PackMecEng (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Again, gee, thanks and WP:AGF. I will continue to believe my lying eyes, and I'm not proposing to add my opinion to the article. This article is about Trump, not the lapses in security, disagreements on which law enforcement forces were supposed to do what, etc., which is what the four sources you cited and this NYT article (archived) are about. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

It would be nice if you cited the urls of articles you mention. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Mention assassination in lead. Even though the bullet barely touched his ear, yet enough to draw blood, it's still an assassination attempt, and that's a very notable event that should be mentioned in the lead. To put this in context, you should watch this reel from Jason Pargin. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
• @PackMecEng: big yikes on [4]. It never should have been restored after being contested in the first place and the only reason it's "been there a few weeks now" is because other editors have the self-restraint not to edit war. Claiming it's the status quo is not ok. VQuakr (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  That's how status quo works, its been there a while and removing it, at this point, is the bold action. PackMecEng (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Lol, no. The only bold action here is you deceptively equating "a while" to "a few weeks". Reverted. Zaathras (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I think you might be confused. PackMecEng (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  There is nothing confusing about "It's been there a few weeks now, restoring status quo" being a reality-adverse claim. Zaathras (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Various iterations of the shooting were added to the lead and reverted or amended, e.g., by me on July 16. And then I somehow inadvertently reverted myself, twice, along with other stuff I didn’t mean to do (confusion possibly due to temporary brain spasms and/or intervening other edits). The lead contained the unintended phrase until August 3 when Specifico challenged it, i.e., less than three weeks. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  If you two are going to edit war over stuff that has been there for weeks with continuing coverage does that mean RFC time? PackMecEng (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  The body text is sufficient and it links to our plentiful coverage on the shooting page. Trump has moved on and so should we. SPECIFICO talk 15:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  What edit war? Specifico fixed my error. My edit on July 16 proposed this wording: On July 13, 2024, he was injured in an assassination attempt. That was three days after the shooting and 10 days before the gauze pad/Band-Air came off. I've since reconsidered — let's keep it in the body until the FBI has finished its investigation. An AR-15 bullet travelling at around 3,000 feet per second, and there's no scar? >Maybe it hit a gnat on the way, and the gnat nicked the ear. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  4–6 weeks was suggested years ago by admin NeilN. We've used that a number of times and it's the closest thing we have to a local consensus. (I have advocated codifying that and other things like it, but editors prefer the conflicts such as seen here.) ―Mandruss ☎ 02:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

• I hate to be dragged into politics, but this is absolutely ridiculous. The only semi-logical objection is WP:RECENTISM, but even then, this could be applied to virtually anything that happened to him this year. It is extremely notable and highly covered in sources across the political spectrum. There IS consensus, and the only response to that is "4 weeks isn't enough", yet his civil proceedings were added (albeit rightfully) immediately after his convictions... Wretchskull (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  This isn't politics, it's WP. yet his civil proceedings were added (albeit rightfully) immediately after his convictions - yep, WP:BRDBOLD, and nobody reverted. In this case, the edit was challenged, so kindly self-revert. Where do you see a consensus? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I only saw it recently get removed and suddenly there is a problem which didn't exist for a month. Shouldn't new consensus be established if you want it removed? Also, none of the arguments I see here are actually about the content itself; people challenging there mere fact that it is mentioned. Wretchskull (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  All the arguments here are about the content and its NPOV-worthy sourcing. I would have objected immediately if the idea of putting this inconsequential bit of his life were not typical of the dozens of RECENTISM edits that get a few editors all excited, waste their time and others' valuable time, and then get dropped. Nobody's required to jump in on these proposals immediately or even promptly. Especially when the rationale for them is so readily rebuttable. The significance of this event, to date, relates to the Secret Service, the rally attendees, and other matters UNDUE for this bio page. If it later results in noteworthy significance for Trump, ipse, then it will need to go on this page. Don't forget, at convention time Trump's handlers were projecting the story that this bullet/shard was like tinkerbell's wand that transformed Mr. Trump into a kinder, gentler Trump 2.0. But no source I've seen still believes that has happened. SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  @Wretchskull: having this content in the lead was contested more or less immediately, after which discussion began on the talk page. It shouldn't have been restored without consensus per WP:BRD. There most certainly has never been consensus for its inclusion in the lead to date. VQuakr (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  @VQuakr: It's fine if people contest, it's just that the objections are illogical. @SPECIFICO: Again, absolutely ridiculous: "inconsequential bit of his life"?? "The significance of this event, to date, relates to the Secret Service, the rally attendees"?? Inconsequential? Relevant to virtually EVERYONE in the event EXCEPT the person actually getting shot!? Everything you said is a matter of opinion, because that is not reflected in reliable sources whatsoever. Please provide RS that clearly showcases your point that there is consensus the Secret Service, attendees, etc., are more relevant to the subject than Trump, or that it is "inconsequential", otherwise no objections hold any value. Wretchskull (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Innocent Americans were killed/injured, and Secret Service is in crisis. Trump breezes on. See our article on the incident. SPECIFICO talk 10:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I changed my mind a couple of times about whether to add the incident to the lead and, if so, how, and also how to mention it in the body. If we had RS saying the attack had resulted in Trump being seriously injured, or that it had been politically motivated, or that it had a lasting effect on the presidential race, the situation would be different. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Yes, time will tell. Classic RECENTISM situation. There's incipient commentary among some press and observers that this incident may have accelerated various cognitive dysfunctions. But as with all such speculation, we do not rush to publish it without established encyclopedic significance. SPECIFICO talk 15:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  It's fine if people contest, it's just that the objections are illogical. No, just because you disagree with something doesn't make it illogical. Others have mentioned that T. Roosevelt's lead doesn't mention his shooting, which was far more consequential that Trump's appears likely to be. I mentioned the Ford attempts above that also aren't in the lead of his article. The only reason we're even considering adding this to the lead right now is because Trump's shooting is more recent. That doesn't make it lead-worthy. If years from now historians note the shooting as an inflection point in Trump's biography, then we'll probably add it to the lead. As of now, that doesn't appear to be the case - it's just something that's being blended into the rest of the breaking news churn and of little lasting significance. Yes, this is a matter of opinion, an editorial judgement call, since the fact that the attempt occurred is obviously verifiable. VQuakr (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

As a comparison, note that we don't mention in Theodore Roosevelt's bio lead, that the former president survived an assassination attempt, while campaigning to return to the White House. GoodDay (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@SPECIFICO: Yep, and consensus, even in the article, considers it an attempted assassination of the former president. No contrary sources; I rest my case. @Space4Time3Continuum2x: We can mention the assassination in the lede. These arbitrary rationales (whatever happened to him afterwards, etc.) are not what drives encyclopedias, because it's based on summation of reliable sources. @GoodDay: An article doing or not doing something has essentially no bearing on a discussion. The Roosevelt article isn't high-quality or that well-thought-through, and neither are there discussions about mentioning the attempted assassination in the lede. There is absolutely no reason not to include it to the Roosevelt article lede, and the exact same applies to this article. The lede section summarizes the most important points from the article body. The attempt on Trump had a well-sourced section which was unduly removed for being "unnecessary", which logically applies to literally any section. Are there any other objections people have or do we have to stretch this out for weeks and months..? Otherwise, we can reinstate the sentence. Wretchskull (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The former president only got his ear clipped. It has already healed. And most importantly, it has quickly fallen out of the news cycle. The way the media has treated this story, it is far closer in scale and coverage to the guy who chucked a grenade at President Bush than it is to the biography-defining attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. All in all, not lede-worthy. Zaathras (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wretch, that is a strawman. I don't see any suggestion it was not an assassination attempt. It's just that it had negligible significance in Trump's long and storied biography. SPECIFICO talk 16:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

It appears you're suggesting expanding this dispute, into RFC territory. That's entirely up to you. But I suspect by mid-September, the assassination attempt on Trump will be even less noteworthy. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Wretchskull: yes, there are quite a few objections (obviously). I suggest waiting a couple of months on an RfC, as I think the decision either way on whether to include in the lead will be clearer by then - possibly to the extent that no RfC would be necessary. But either way, can I ask you to please turn down the temperature on your tone a couple of notches? VQuakr (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Zaathras: I don't necessarily think that's true though. I see a mix of reliable news sources which often cover it even when discussing unrelated topics on him—around the same frequency as his convictions. But that doesn't mean that the convictions should be removed from the lede, and same with the attempt on him. Again, arbitrary opinions like "it has already healed", even if true, is unencyclopedic. Wikipedia articles are summaries which synthesize reliable sources, not subjective opinions by editors. Also, "it is far closer in scale and coverage to the guy who chucked a grenade at President Bush" I don't think that's true either, given that there isn't even an independent article on it on Wikipedia, despite decades of possible sources.

Quite the opposite SPECIFICO, because of reliable sources. Also I'm pretty sure that it'll be a huge part of his campaign.

GoodDay and VQuakr, an expansion of the dispute and RfC is exactly what I want to avoid. I hate lengthy discussions over things that have little meaning to me or outside my breadth, especially anything remotely political. I expected this to be very quick because, I am sorry to say this, but I'm not convinced by the rationales given to exclude the assassination attempt from the lede. I'm genuinely trying to give the benefit of the doubt and understand your perspective, but the recentism and WP:DUE arguments are simply not reflected by reliable sources, even very recently. What are your thoughts?

Wretchskull (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you add it, I won't revert. Also, if somebody removes it, I won't revert. It's not something I'm overly concerned over. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The benefit of the doubt is just something you give per WP:AGF; you don't need to announce it. Whether you are convinced by the rationales given does not matter. I do disagree with GoodDay, however. It has been contested and should not be re-added to the lead without clear consensus. VQuakr (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@VQuakr: I understand that. I'm just frustrated because, like I said, the objections aren't supported by reliable sources and is therefore unwarranted in my opinion. What are your thoughts on that? Wretchskull (talk) 08:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

"The objections aren't supported by reliable sources" isn't a meaningful statement in this context. VQuakr (talk) 08:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Exclude The significance of any event in an article is solely determined by its degree of coverage in reliable sources. Extensive coverage when it happened is not sufficient for someone who has been in the news every day for eight years.

Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, George Wallace, Jerry Ford and Ronald Reagan were all shot at, but sources do not give these attempts the same significance.

TFD (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Exclude: "Survived an assassination attempt" sounds like he spent 3 months in a hospital but managed to struggle to a recovery. This assassination attempt has no obviously greater importance for his biography than those of other presidents and candidates and public figures whose biography articles do not mention the incidents in the lead section. Teddy Roosevelt was shot and proceeded to give a 90-minute speech about the great importance of the progressive cause with a bullet lodged in his chest, but the article about him doesn't mention it in the lead section. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Peter Cooper (Age 84) is actually. The statement should be "Oldest Republican Presidential Nominee" 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:F817:63AE:2453:9C90 (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sheesh. At some point, there are so many qualifiers as to make the "record" useless. I think we're there. Baseball stats are of interest only to baseball fan(atic)s. Let's remove it. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oooh, maybe I could add that he's the only nominee who was saved by a miracle/divine intervention. "The doctor at the hospital said he never saw anything like this, he called it a miracle," said Trump. The doctor at the local hospital, which has a trauma center, told him he’s never seen anyone survive getting hit by an AR-15, Trump recalled. "By luck or by God, many people are saying it’s by God I’m still here," he said (courtesy of an interview he gave to the New York Post and the Washington Times en route to the RNC in Milwaukee). I started editing Attempted assassination of Donald Trump and was going to nix the Post but they're not reporting facts, just what Trump said, so I figure A 2024 RfC concluded that the New York Post is marginally reliable for entertainment coverage applies. The direct quotes in the WP article are also pretty entertaining. And the good doctor still hasn't seen anyone survive getting hit by an AR-15. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lol. I have no idea what you just said; must be my ADD again. What are you advocating here, exactly? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Um - I was feeling slightly giddy after reading the WP page and the NY Post article? Trump's age — pish and pshaw (that must date back to the times of Peter Who?). I went bold and mentioned a few other superlatives for a major-party nominee (first felon, first to be found liable for sexual abuse, first whose business was convicted of criminal tax fraud), so I'll probably be back here shortly defending my edit. I expect the people who support "oldest" will support them as well  . Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

You're correct; the source says "oldest major party nominee" so I'm amending it to say that. I think it's pretty noteworthy being the oldest person nominated by a major party for the highest office in the land, so I disagree with deletion. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm pretty sure that Trump is older than anyone who has been the formal nominee of any party, major or minor. Before anyone mentions Biden, he was younger 4 years ago than Trump is now and he dropped out of contention this year before he became the official nominee. Ths is a saying that started going around afterBiden dropped out. Since Trump and his supporters made such a big deal of Biden's age, the Democrats have started turning those questions and objections back on the Republicans--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree this is like baseball stats. We don't need it. Given increasing longevity, the age of candidates is set to increase.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not just Biden’s age. Also his dementia and gaffs like the “America can be defined in one word: a fuggiwuggi—uh—in the Himalayas with Xi JinPing”, and physical falls like the one from the bike and the one on the stairs to his Air Force One. Alexysun (talk) 08:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

W IP user. Alexysun (talk) 08:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Oldest" and then "oldest major-party" nominee were recent additions. I don't see a consensus for the addition, so I've reverted it for now. A qualified superlative — not that impressive, and Trump's age is not getting much mention in RS, much less than Agenda 2025, racism, misogyny, his criminal record (the "overdetails"), the latest awful/dumb thing he said, etc. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

He's also the first major party nominee to have run against a woman major party nominee & will do so again. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I added a sentence regarding DJT's 1968 Draft deferment granted on the basis of alleged bone spurs in both feet. The subject has substantially arisen in recent months due to the campaign. Google noted that a Trump - bone spurs ostensible diagnosis has been recently searched for over 591,000 times. The situation had been well documented for nine years, including a very extensive investigation by the New York Times starting in 2015. The Wikipedia readership should not be denied access to this information. Activist (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Activist, your bold edit on August 8 was reverted on August 9. Please, self-revert your reinstatement of the challenged material. Discussion first, wait 24 hours from the time of your talk page message before reinstating. Also, why didn't you put your comment at the bottom of the Talk page? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have to apologize for adding the Talk on the "Bonespur" comments. I'm having terrible vision problems and expect I won't be able to edit Wikipedia for much longer. I've tried to sort this out, and hope I haven't confused things too much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activist (talk • contribs) 13:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think this bit is UNDUE for this page. There are several other articles for which it's suitable. There was an epidemic of bonespurs around that time. SPECIFICO talk 20:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bonespurs are not contagious and most 1960's draft dodgers didn't have accommodating podiatrist tenants of their fathers to write the alleged diagnosis. But this particular faker is the only one currently running for president, at the same time deriding the U.S. military and simultaneously proclaiming his own supposed bravado. The 591 thousand people who made that Google search that I've noted previously may have been "spurred" on by his "suckers and losers" comments regarding the French cemetery where so many U.S. casualties were buried. His current VP candidate is busily and assiduously smearing the 24 years of military service of his opponent's VP candidate. Trump is noteworthy for having told 30,573 lies or misstatements of fact while in the White House, which was carefully documented by the Washington Post. Activist (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think it is worth a sentence in the article. It gets a lot of consistent coverage and is relevant to his biography. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

We mention it in the last sentence of the "Early life" section: In October 1968, he was classified 1-Y, a conditional medical deferment,[13] and in 1972, he was reclassified 4-F, unfit for military service, due to bone spurs, permanently disqualifying him.[14] The NYT reported the podiatrist's daughters said their father often spoke of having provided a deferment-establishing bone spurs diagnosis as a courtesy to his landlord who was Trump's father Fred. I don't doubt the information but it's hearsay, and naming father and daughters is too much detail. The bone spurs made headlines when Trump first ran because he was permanently disqualified for a temporary condition, and he didn't remember which foot was affected. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Regarding the assassination attempt on Trump, the existing main text content was included in the main text without a separate subtitle, so the content was not highlighted and seemed to be hidden. However, I think that the assassination attempt attempted by the assassin with 8 bullets is the most interesting topic for Trump's life, which could take a person's life, and for those who support Trump, who make up nearly half of the American people. Regarding assigning a separate subtitle to this, please give your opinion on assigning a subtitle, and if there is anything to revise or supplement the content. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The purpose of section headings is navigation, not emphasis. It is difficult to assess the relative importance of aspects of a subject when events are recent, but it seems improbable that a minor wounding will end up being a particularly important aspect of a former President's life. VQuakr (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Even though 45th President of U.S. dodged the bullet by an inch, saving his life, and the bullet wound be not be a minor injury, anyone who reading this article would have died if the bullet had hit any human in the face by an inch, and it would have been 100% fatal.

If we look more specifically at the evidence,

If you look at the attached video below, all eight bullets were aimed at the former president, and if the former president had not been able to dodge in time, that is, if he had not turned his head, he would have died at the scene.

• If you look at the specific time analyzed in the 24 minutes video, if you look at the attached video from 16 minutes 01 seconds to 16 minutes 07 seconds, you can see that the 5 seconds video clip, with 3D modeling, shows that the Presidential assassin's bullet was actually aimed to kill President Trump, and that President Trump dodged it by just an inch to save his life. the eight bullets by the assassin surely can kill anyone who is reading this article as you understand. ^[1]

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's a lot of ifs, and WP doesn't speculate. Trump did turn his head — for a reason other than literally dodging bullets — and ended up with a minor injury and an "iconic" picture that, just like the shooting, appears to be yesterday's news and something to be monetized. The shooting didn't change Trump's campaign strategy and rhetoric. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

More likely the sharpshooter was just aiming to scare him or muss up his hair. Just adding speculation the contrary for balance. While the authorities stated they were investigating the marksman's history and social media profile, I have not seen any conclusions as to his motivations or intended outcome. We really know nothing except the outcome -- nothing for Trump, and the tragic death and injuries among his audience. It's therefore dubious even to call this an attempted assassination. We do not know the shooter's intent or attempted intent or intended attempt. If Trump starts speaking in a glass cage, as has been proposed, that may thrust this incident back into the news. SPECIFICO talk 16:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

We got by RS and not insane theories. So let's just stick to what almost every high quality source says, which is it was an assassination attempt. We need to stop with the personal research you two. PackMecEng (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Pushing baseless conspiracy theories, insane theories, personal research — will you be done with the denigration any time soon? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The editing of this article is actually a reality show called "Get Trump". In the current episode there is a contest to see how minimal the presentation of the assassination attempt can get. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, then our "show" lost to Britannica. They mention the felony convictions in the first paragraph of the lead, the other indictments and the civil suits in the second paragraph, and the impeachments in the third one. You have to scroll waaay down to find the short paragraph on the assassination attempt. Quote: "His injury was minor." I'm not sure whether we're ahead of or also lost to Conservapedia. They have a seven-paragraph section entitled "assassination attempt" which mentions everything from the "J6 witch hunt" to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to Theodore Roosevelt. The one thing they don’t mention is the actual shooting in Butler, PA. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure you're aware it's not denigration if it's well-founded. This page has long had an excess of what PME called personal research and we're not here to perform that kind of analysis—it's too vulnerable to personal bias. Some degree of it is necessary and appropriate, ie editorial judgment, making it impossible to draw a bright line. But we have taken it too far for so long, IMNSHO, that it seems normal. Words like "insane" may be out of line, but you might address the substance of the objection instead of the form. The latter is easy; the former is harder but more important. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Gee, thanks to you, too. (PME: Priority Mail Express, Professional Military Education, Premature Ejaculation?) "Insane" MAY be out of line? I won’t waste my time arguing with the writer of that epithet. As for your arguments, please take a look at the editing history of the "attempted assassination" section. I added it a few weeks ago because of RS at the time. After it got trimmed to the one sentence, I removed the heading, added the Wikilink to the sentence, and moved it into the "2024 campaign" section in chronological order. I have now added "presumed assassination attempt" (as in "appearing to be true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be confirmed") to the sentence, per the cited and other RS. BTW, all I do is "personal research" - of online sources and books I have bought. I don’t have a staff to do it for me, and I prefer not to make up my own facts. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for belatedly responding to the substance. I note that you vociferously object to "insane" one sentence after asking whether "PME" (quite obviously PackMecEng) means premature ejaculation. Here's a mirror. My point is that comments like this one and this one are almost completely divorced from Wikipedia content policy (yours a little better than SPECIFICO's) and have little place in article talk. I think it's time we started to cut down on that, though it would be very difficult to quit cold-turkey. I'm far more concerned about that than what this article says about the shooting. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Declining the mirror — maybe it’s the humidity clogging my brain, but "PME" wasn’t obvious to me as an abbreviation for an editor’s name. It was just another abbreviation I didn’t find at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_abbreviations and then looked up "on the internet", results as expected. As for my "lot of ifs" comment, it was in response to this one by another experienced editor, so I didn’t WP:RS them. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Here's the text of the current version[5], which consists of a single sentence in the article.

"On July 13, 2024, Trump was nicked on the ear by gunfire at a campaign rally in Butler Township, Butler County, Pennsylvania."

Note that it is not called an assassination attempt, which is consistent with SPECIFICO's personal idea that it may not have been that.

This can be compared to the section Assassination attempts in the Gerald Ford article. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@SPECIFICO I think we can speculate that as a registered republican who donated to the DNC after witnessing Jan 6, the shooter was attempting to kill the former president, his motive being a fear of Trumps return to power and the percieved resulting threat to the republic? Halbalbador (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

No WE can't speculate about anything (see wp:or). Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Got your facts in the wrong order. Crooks donated $15 to a get-out-the-vote site on January 20, 2021, and registered as a Republican in September 2021, i.e., both after witnessing Jan 6. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@SPECIFICO: Noting that he did, in fact, start speaking from behind bulletproof glass like you said. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the place where the assassin fired eight bullets at Trump, if it is said that this was not an assassination attempt, it will be seen as representing the opinions of supporters of the Democratic Party in the United States who are trying to downplay the assassination attempt. I think that an objective view on this should be based on the fact that the major American media outlets, such as the National Broadcasting Company (NBC), CBS (formerly the Columbia Broadcasting System), the American Broadcasting Company (ABC), and the Fox Broadcasting Company (Fox), have stated that the assassin fired several bullets at President Trump and that it was an assassination attempt. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Per MOS:NAVLIST,

I will replace the previous normal campaign photo with an image of the related to the assassination attempt, as this is a significantly more impactful and relevant event for the section. Given the gravity of the incident, readers will likely find this image more engaging and informative.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

That photo is not representative of his campaign and should not be used in that manner. Show his two-fisted Trump Dance. Much more emblemmatic of his rallies than a one-shot exception. SPECIFICO talk 02:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comment. I think the Two Fist Trump Dance would also add to the symbolism of the rally. If you noticed a photo that shows the rally dynamically, please post it. How about adding a suitable photo related to the assassination attempt? For example, a photo that shows how far away the assassin was from Trump. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

We can't say he was injured. It's not specific enough and it sounds like a laceration to the kidney or Ronald Reagan style near-death lung puncture. He was scratched. As he explained to the world in his convention speech, the ear is richly supplied with blood vessels - hence the mess on his cheek. SPECIFICO talk 02:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

We can say injured/injury precisely because it's very general. It's a word nobody can dispute, so it's hardly OR to say it. Not so for scratched/scratch; if you want to say that you'll need to show widespread use in RS. From what I've read, I don't think you can.

But injured/injury is not all we say as of yesterday. Since it's very general, we add more information as follows: "Former White House physician Ronny Jackson said he had seen the injury and that it was a two-centimeters-wide gunshot wound to Trump's right ear." I don't think that sounds anything like a laceration to the kidney or Ronald Reagan style near-death lung puncture. It certainly doesn't sound like a scratch. Jackson arguably has credibility issues, but we're attributing his words to him rather than accepting his words as Truth and stating them as fact using wikivoice. Compare and contrast: "The injury was a two-centimeters-wide gunshot wound to Trump's right ear."

Unless/until medical records are released/reported, I doubt we can do much better without OR and without consuming too much space for this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think it's fair to say that he was injured.

Let's say the person reading this was grazed by a bullet. If it was the same wound, if it was a fall and the same amount of blood was shed, or if it was a knife wound and the same amount of blood was shed, it could be expressed as a scratch.

However, since the wound is only 1 inch inside the face, it is a bullet wound that could take the life of the person reading this article, or if the bullet hit the inside of the face, it is reasonable to say that it is an injury.

Even if it is the same wound, if the cause is a bullet wound that could actually take the life of a person, it is medically considered an injury, and for this reason, major media outlets around the world reported that it was an obvious assassination attempt that saved the life by only 1 inch. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Since we’re wading into the knowns, i.e., the details the Trump campaign released to the press, then we should also wade into the known unknowns RS mentioned. AP writes about the memo that was written by Jackson and released by the campaign: The bullet track, he said, "produced a 2 cm wide wound that extended down to the cartilaginous surface of the ear", i.e., an 0.79" skin-deep furrow, and that no sutures were required. (Or, as Jackson said earlier, the bullet took "a little bit off the top of his ear".) The AP source also says that the Trump campaign declined "to disclose medical records or hold briefings with the doctors who treated him at the hospital". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looks like there's a lot of contortions and contrivances here trying to minimize the close to death situation where a sniper on a rooftop with a powerful assault rifle shot at former president and presidential candidate Trump and got so close to killing him that the bullet hit his ear. The seriousness of the attack is further illustrated by the shooting death of a person nearby and the critical injury by gunshot of two others in the same attack with the assault rifle. Trump was very fortunate that he was not killed. Yet some editors are trying to diminish the significant danger to Trump's life by focusing attention on the minor nature of the wound. This reminds me of a time many decades ago when someone asked, "Have You No Sense of Decency?" Bob K31416 (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your comment (rant) is no more policy-based than those of the editors you're complaining about, and violates the spirit if not the letter of NOTFORUM, AGF, and NPA. Just because something is true, if in fact it's true, that doesn't mean it has any place on this page. If an editor Has No Sense of Decency, shaming them here is not going to force them to grow some. Stay focused on policy, not editor motives; if that's not enough, the AP2 area of the project is a lost cause anyway. And that may well be the case. I suggest realism and pragmatism. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

That seems to standard across Wikipedia, therefore, the standard should be upheld for this article. NesserWiki (talk) 09:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Its in the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

We already had a whole discussion about this. There was no consensus to include in the opening sentence, and it's already in the lead as Slatersteven said. — Czello ^(music) 09:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think that photos related to Donald Trump appearing in movies or TV are suitable for this subheading. However, the existing photos of him watching a baseball game are not related to this subheading at all, so I think it would be appropriate to replace them with more suitable photos. Therefore, it would be appropriate to replace the photos with more relevant photos. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any that are not copyrighted? Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think the photo of Rodman directly involved in the Celebrity Apprentice broadcast and taken in 2009 is copyrightable and suitable for the subtitle. I searched for various related photos for over 45 minutes, but the photo below is the only one that is copyrightable. > File:Trump and Rodman 2009.jpg - Trump with Dennis Rodman for Celebrity Apprentice Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

What I mean is we can only use free to use (public domain) images, not ones that are someones copyright. Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

How about replacing this image with the current one from https://commons.wikimedia.org/ which is available without copyright restrictions: File:Trump and Rodman 2009.jpg? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

It really does not add anything of value to the article. Zaathras (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

In 2018, the "Side ventures" section had a "Sports events" subsection with the picture of Trump at the baseball game and an "Apprentice" subsection with the Trump/Rodman photograph on the set of the show. (In case anyone wonders, the caption of Trump's Walk of Fame star back then was misleading. He received it for producing the Miss Universe contest.) The Trump/Rodman image was removed after this discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oppose Trump/Rodman per existing consensus linked above. Open to other suggestions. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the photo was relevant when "sports events" were located there in the past. It is no longer relevant to movie and TV titles, so could we please remove the irrelevant photo now, and add new photos when anyone find images later that are directly relevant to the subheading? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Goodtiming8871: I'm not married to that image, and my guess is that nobody really cares that much. That's what BOLD editing is for. I don't see that anybody has tried boldly removing that image, so I suggest you do so, citing MOS:SECTIONLOC or an equivalent guideline (image-related PAGs are scattered and often redundant). If your edit is challenged by reversion, the issue can come back here. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your suggestion, I will remove the redundant image based on MOS:SECTIONLOC, (image-related PAGs). Goodtiming8871 (talk) 04:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Could you please add a "See also" section to the Donald Trump topic? Or maybe I can add one? From my understanding, it is missing from the Donald Trump Subject, so I would appreciate your opinion on this. There are candidates for the US presidential election and the current US presidents with "See also section" ^[1], ^[2], "See Also section" makes it very accessible, so even if there is a link in the text, the main related parts can be accessed right away, so I think this is necessary. By adding "See also" to the Donald Trump section to correct the imbalance with other Wikipedia relevant contents.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 04:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the section. It's optional, and this article is already longer than most. Per MOS:NAVLIST, Editors should try to put themselves in the readers' frame of mind and ask "Where will I likely want to go after reading this article? " Are the three lists in the "See also" section you added (List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots, List of United States presidential elections by popular vote margin, and List of United States presidential candidates by number of votes received)? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Per MOS:NAVLIST, I've added navigational lists, which benefit readers by providing easy access to relevant Trump-related information. Given the article's length and comprehensive nature, a "see also" section is essential. This feature caters to readers who prefer a concise overview by allowing them to quickly locate specific topics. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

After identifying the parts that need to be linked to the main article, I will also add a "See Also section" to add content that is not in the existing text or that may be of interest to those interested in Wikipedia in the run-up to the November 2024 US presidential election. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

In the case of Barack Obama,^[3] there is a See Also item, categorized in detail. For the convenience of users, I will add this for Donald Trump as well. If you have any other opinions about this, please let me know in advance.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article is too long to have one. There is simply no room for unnecessary content. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

In the case of Wikipedia, as you can add the necessary content, I think it is fair to include the necessary content since it is the user's choice to access the content. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oppose. This article is too long and growing and there is already a very lengthy list of article links in the sidebar. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The sidebar is what I mean by that, in the 10+ years I've been accessing Wikipedia, I've never used the sidebar and See Also is actually used a lot, so it's definitely something that users need. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 08:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think it is unfair to restrict users from conveniently accessing various related article topics directly related to Donald Trump that passed DUE and RS.

Since the main text is longer than other topics, the convenience of access and the ability to select should be improved. In other words, this Donald Trump content is even more - See Also section is a necessary function to increase accessibility and selectivity for the numerous users accessing Wikipedia around the world.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 09:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

In other Wikipedia-related content, if there is a sub-item, the content is summarized in 3-5 lines, and a link to the main page is attached for the corresponding sub-item. However, this section does not have a summary, so the readability is poor, and if you like to see the content, you have to click on the link to check the other related content. Could you please add a summary? Or can I add it? If there is a summary, the readability will be improved, and it will be helpful to many other users. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I initially moved the link to the list into a sentence, then got to wondering where that heading and "main" came from in the first place. The article had an honors and awards section until 2017 when the article was much shorter. After a discussion on December 10 it was moved into the separate List of awards and honors received by Donald Trump which is currently linked in the Infobox "awards" parameter. The insertion of heading and "main" link into the article was overlooked at a time when there were numerous insertions and reverts because it was added in a large edit without being mentioned in the edit summary. It would be hard to summarize the content of the list in 3–5 lines, and even those 3–5 lines would necessitate citing quite a few sources. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for providing the subsection's history. A brief 3-5 line summary with an example source would suffice, as this subsection complements the main article, which already includes a detailed list of references. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The comprehensive list of awards and honors received by the 45th President Donald Trump has been compiled collaboratively by many users over a period of seven years, starting in 2017, and since it has been separated into a separate article, it seems appropriate to keep the subheadings in the main text to honor the contributions of these contributors. However, the key details are summarized concisely in three lines. The comprehensive references are available in a separate article, so examples are provided. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Slatersteven, have you seen this discussion? Goodtime shouldn't have added the section before the conclusion of the discussion. "Noted, and I'm going to add what I think we need to add" does not constitute a consensus. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, My main contribution to editing was to recover what many users have worked on for over 7 years. And there should be a summary. The current one-line summary could be improved a bit. For now, I will just attach a few references as examples. - it is the proposed edit,

Donald Trump has been granted a number of awards and accolades, both domestic ^{[1] [2]} and international.^[3][4][5] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not sure we need the links, after all they are supposed to be reading the main article, but fine have em. Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

List of awards and honors received by Donald Trump has 53 sources on honors awarded and honorary doctorates bestowed and rescinded, one of the reasons the long list was removed from this long article and moved into its own article in 2017. Why did you pick these sources? None of them pass the RS test, except possibly the Philadelphia Inquirer, and that one is the source for the Freedoms Foundation's President's Medal (not to be confused with the Presidential Medal of Freedom). It's one of the awards the Freedoms Foundation, according to their website, has awarded by the tens of thousands since 1949. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I seem to recall what was one of the issues, and why it got shifted out. So as to take the edit warring over what was and was not a notable award elsewhere. Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

So why are you now supporting putting it back in? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

As far as I understand, the consensus is that the main page will have a summary, and most of the content will be moved to a separate page. If necessary, there will be a separate discussion about what is notable and what is not.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, the consensus was to remove the section:

Since that discussion, numerous awards have been added to the list (presidents tend to receive many awards), and the page now has 57 cited sources. A summary saying has been granted a number of awards and accolades, both domestic and international with a few sources for a few random awards isn't any more informative than the status quo ante, the "awards" link in the infobox. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The section was moved out into its own page on December 10, 2017, after a brief discussion involving two editors. It has since been accessible via the link "awards = Full list" in the infobox.

• On July 5, 2024, the heading and the "main" link were reinserted into the article, hidden in a large edit that claimed to "separate early life and education & personal life".
• I noticed the bare heading on August 19 and added a sentence without initially realizing that the section had previously been removed. I then self-reverted and removed the heading.
• Goodtiming8871 reinstated the heading and "main" the following day and added the record of achievement with three cites for one of the orders.

A number of edits (1, 2, 3, 4) followed. Result: the current Donald Trump#Honors and Awards section. Thoughts on keeping or returning to status quo ante without the section? As for "whatabout": Obama's page also gets along with the "full list" link in the infobox and without an honors and awards section. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 09:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

In the case of Barack Obama, under the main heading Legacy and recognition, there is a detailed summary with links to the subheading Awards and honors for 7 pages, and it also includes a photo of Obama receiving the award. In the case of Donald Trump, I suggest at least maintaining the current summary, or adding additional photos and key content to supplement it similarly to the case of Barack Obama. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I overlooked the "Honor and awards" subsection in Barack Obama. It's a prose list (basically a series of Wikilinks and dates with a few connecting words in between) of selected items from the List of awards and honors received by Barack Obama with a link to the full list that's also linked from the Infobox. It’s also without any citations, i.e., using another WP article as its source, something we're not supposed to do per WP:USERGENERATED. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I support removing the section and sticking to just the infobox link. The article's length is already an issue, so we would need a very good reason to add an extra section to it. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

For the sake of fairness, in the case of Donald Trump, it would be appropriate to supplement the content a bit and make it similar in length to the following.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Obama received the Norwegian Nobel Committee's Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, The Shoah Foundation Institute for Visual History and Education's Ambassador of Humanity Award in 2014, the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award in 2017, and the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights Ripple of Hope Award in 2018. He was named TIME Magazine's Time Person of the Year in 2008 and 2012. He also received two Grammy Awards for Best Spoken Word Album for Dreams from My Father (2006), and The Audacity of Hope (2008) as well as two Primetime Emmy Awards for Outstanding Narrator for Our Great National Parks (2022), and Working: What We Do All Day (2023). He also won two Children's and Family Emmy Awards.

The article text describing Ronny Jackson as a Trump political ally -- cited to Associated Press -- has been removed on the theory that the word "ally" does not appear in the source. What the source says is that Jackson is a "staunch supporter" of Trump and then devotes several paragraphs to eviscerating Jackson as a credible witness. Somehow, either by my euphemistic "political ally" or otherwise, the sense of the cited source needs to be conveyed in our article text. SPECIFICO talk 19:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

At what point does a desire for accuracy about the nature of the ear injury become obsessive? It's Just Not That Important in my view. If Jackson had substantially exaggerated, I suspect someone with firsthand knowledge would have leaked something to that effect. Any deeper analysis can be done at Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Let's just be true to the sources instead of crafting narratives that are not following the cited sources. That would be the easiest and best. If you are for leaving the whole Ronny J 2 cm bit out, that would be fine too. SPECIFICO talk 21:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

If we were using wikivoice, you'd have a point. We're not. Since I introduced the whole Ronny J 2 cm bit, it's fairly obvious that I'm not for leaving it out. It provides more information than simple "injury", information that seems more credible than not per my previous comment. It maybe wouldn't have been necessary if not for a certain editor's attempt to call it a mere scratch without sufficient RS support. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

As for Let's just be true to the sources, I think you mean let's be true to the source that says what you want. I don't see much other RS seriously calling Jackson's account into question. Certainly not many saying it was a scratch. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not following that, Mandruss. Isn't that the AP source that you added when you added the 2 cm? I just tried to conform the article to the cited source, which goes on at considerable length to cast doubt on RJ as a credible or significant factfinder. SPECIFICO talk 13:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just looks like excessive detail and did not add value. I did not read it as the RS going to considerable length to cast doubt. PackMecEng (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Shall we escort Ronny and his laceration from the page? It's not even clear that he actually examined the patient. SPECIFICO talk 17:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I added the AP source, which has more info about the nature of the injury, and the sentence about Trump not disclosing the medical and ER records on injury and treatment. Unless the FBI has access to those and mentions them in the publicly released part of their report, that's all we'll ever find out. I also added the Wikilink to Jackson's page. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not following that, Mandruss... - The point is that we need to at least try to be true to the body of RS, not just the RS that we cite. As I tried to indicate, the AP source is not representative of the body of RS regarding the credibility of Jackson's memo. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Jackson is not quoted. Trump presented a document attributed to Jackson. Jackson is roundly discredited by mainstream RS for the reasons in that cited article and many other reasons. There is no consensus to include this content as if it were of any medical significance. Further, given Trump's splendid recovery -- which today he boasted was due to the hand of God saving him to carry on his political role -- the whole issue of the wound is trivial. What may not turn out to be trivial is the spectacle of Trump addressing crowds from a glass cage like the parrots in the zoo and there may ultimately be psychological effects of this terrible shooting. But that will only be known some time in the future. When in doubt, take it out. Somebody will remove this fairly soon, I think, and correctly so. SPECIFICO talk 20:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

the whole issue of the wound is trivial. You didn't think it was so trivial when you made this edit. It could've been left alone. I prefer the current status quo per my earlier comments, but I have no strong objection to reverting to the state prior to your edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ronny Jackson doesn't need to be mentioned in this article. The whole paragraph about the assassination attempt needs to be rewritten. R. G. Checkers ^talk 17:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Start rewriting! ―Mandruss ☎ 23:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agreed that Ronny should go. VQuakr (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ronny now booted by SPECIFICO.[6] ―Mandruss ☎ 22:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good; endorsed. DFlhb (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

In light of the recent assassination attempt on the US president, This would be an interesting article for voters to consider regarding the safety of a leading presidential candidate representing the United States. This content would be a good addition to the campaign. ^[1] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is undue for an article about Trump. Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wouldn't bulletproof glass, which was supposed to prevent assassination attempts during the campaign, help ease the concerns of many voters? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

That is not our job (read wp:not), this tells us nothing about Trump. Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Slatersteven here. This information is not relevant for a biography of Trump, although it could potentially be worth mentioning in the article on his 2024 campaign. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your comment Goodtiming8871 (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Saying the S.C.I. said the Russians did interfere in the elections to favor Trump is a Highly misleading sentence. It lacks context both before and after the sentence. You should definitely include the S.C.I. said there was NO COLLUSION between Russia and Donald Trump. And the S.C I. Is the F B I. Lead by director Robert Mueller. Stop calling it the Special Council Investigation. It's called the MUELLER REPORT. THE Russian Hoax was spearheaded by Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi. And the F.B.I was complicit in making the hoax credible. The hoax and all of its lies are completely exposed to the public in Congressional Hearings led by Jim Jordan. It's on YouTube. THAT sentence by itself talking about the Special Council and Russia should be immediately DELETED.There should be a proper section where the full context of the MUELLER report can be displayed. 96.79.132.6 (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

All meaningless without reliable sources, per Wikipedia content policy. Number of reliable sources you bring to the discussion: 0. And your focus should be on the body section, not the lead. That's where we actually cite sources, and the lead is a very brief summary of that. Bring reliable sources to suggest improvements to that section and we can discuss them. Then we can discuss whether any change is needed in the lead, which is seriously space-constrained and never has room to fully explain complicated and nuanced issues. Readers who stop reading at the end of the lead, as you apparently did, will always leave less than fully informed, and that's on them.

Otherwise, stop wasting your time and, more importantly, ours. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just noticed: There should be a proper section where the full context of the MUELLER report can be displayed. Smh. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the proposal; the full context of the Mueller report. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Such as this one: Donald Trump#Mueller investigation, with links to Mueller special counsel investigation and Mueller report  ? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, "smh" means "shaking my head". I was shaking it because the OP is proposing something that already exists. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The third paragraph of the lead currently says this:

A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump.

Let’s change it to this:

Russia unlawfully interfered in that election in Trump’s favor, but investigators have reached no consensus that the Trump campaign unlawfully colluded with Russia, or that Russia affected the election outcome.

The latter is more neutral and more informative. The current version refers to a “special counsel” investigation, which includes an investigation of Trump himself, but we completely omit that no charges against Trump were brought or recommended. Instead, we now suggest that investigators may have found Trump committed a crime, that he may have been charged with it, that he may have admitted it, that he may have become president because of it, etc. In other words, the current sentence is too vague as it stands now, and thus too likely to mislead. I don’t know of any other BLP lead that says the subject was investigated for an offense, and then lets that information dangle without elaboration in the lead.

There were several official investigations of Russian interference in 2016, so let’s speak globally instead of just about the Mueller investigation. And let’s accurately summarize the main results: (1) Russia interfered, (2) no unlawful collusion by Trump has been charged or proved, and (3) no effect on the election outcome has been proved. I am purposely omitting wikilinks and footnotes for now, for simplicity, but we can get to that later. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Support : the updated sentence; it's clear and removed misleading information or potential misunderstanding to the previous issues. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's some pretty imaginative interpretation of a simple, straightforward sentence. You brought this up half a year ago, and we've also had at least one discussion about adding this context: The report revealed sweeping Russian interference and detailed how Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged it, believing "it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts". The current wording is the lowest common denominator and as neutral as it gets. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose. Watered-down and weaselly. Zaathras (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose Yep Watered-down and weaselly. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose. I don't think the lead needs to state things that didn't happen, nor do I think it has room for that. I understand the desire to combat false internet chatter. Self-quote from previous section: Readers who stop reading at the end of the lead [...] will always leave less than fully informed, and that's on them. We should agonize less about accommodating those readers, in my opinion. I also don't see the dangling that you do. (Becoming my mantra: Lblinks would help.) ―Mandruss ☎ 19:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Saying that Trump was investigated by a special counsel, without saying anything in the lead about the investigation’s outcome is very poor writing. Compare the lead about Steven Hatfill which says, “He became the subject of extensive media coverage beginning in mid-2002, when he was a suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks.” Then the Hatfill lead says what the result of the investigation was. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Where does it say Trump was investigated by a special counsel? Not in the lead. If you're saying the lead is misleading after reading the body, that's some pretty weird logic. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

That’s what a “special counsel” is. The special counsel was appointed because the Trump administration had a conflict of interest. The Wikipedia article special counsel says it’s for a “particular case of suspected wrongdoing for which a conflict of interest exists for the usual prosecuting authority.” Obviously, the special counsel investigated Trump. Obviously Russia had no conflict of interest, it wasn’t the investigating authority. Plus it’s common knowledge that Trump was investigated. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well I'm just not that concerned about what's "obvious" to you or "common knowledge" in your opinion. My thinking is limited to what the article says, particularly in the lead which is the topic of this thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Apparently you are unaware what the words “special counsel” in the lead mean. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Again: Stop pandering to lazy readers. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

First of all, WP:Lead says, “The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic.” Secondly, if a non-lazy reader reads the entire article body, it 100% clearly confirms that Trump was investigated. Many readers will read our lead, few will read the whole article body to find the results of the investigation. Please consider that it’s very unwise for us to say in the lead that the special counsel conducted an investigation without saying what the investigation found regarding Trump. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP:Lead says, “The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic.” So vague and subject to interpretation as to be fairly useless here. We necessarily omit a ton of significant information from the lead.

if a non-lazy reader reads the entire article body, it 100% clearly confirms that Trump was investigated. And 100% clearly confirms that investigators have reached no consensus that the Trump campaign unlawfully colluded with Russia, or that Russia affected the election outcome.

And I'm not asking readers to read the entire article body. But, if they care about becoming informed about a particular issue, say, the special counsel investigation, I can reasonably ask them to read that body section. If they can't be bothered to do that, it's a clear sign they don't care much about being informed about it. Far be it from me to say what they should care about. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

It would be better to entirely omit the sentence in the lead, than to cherry pick the one finding of the special counsel that reflects most poorly on Trump. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I'm all for omitting stuff from the lead. That isn't what you proposed. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Should I start a new section? Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

File:Magic 8 Ball - Instrument Of Evil? (2426454804).jpg ―Mandruss ☎ 22:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mañana. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Support - It's not going to do our readers any harm. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

"It won't do any harm" is a very poor argument for anything. It's also false in this case, since adding unnecessary content to the bloated lead is always harmful. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose - The current text is concise while providing known info. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose per O3000 Zaathras and Slatersteven. Very watered down. State the facts as they are. Keep the current version. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

This article is way too long. The article on Trump's opponent, Kamala Harris, is short and to the point. This article should be too. I can't edit it because I don't have 500 edits. Someone please fix this! Wiki Crazyman (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Donald Trump is a 78 yr-old man who has been in a public spotlight for 55 or more of those years, from business dealings to reality show host to politics. There is a lot to say and a lot to cover regarding his life and history, far more than a 59 yr-old woman whom the public has only been aware of for roughly a decade. A user with even an average attention span is able to read this article just fine. Zaathras (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Believe it or not, you're not saying anything new. Throughout this article's life since about 2015, I doubt any issues have been discussed more than its length. See the talk page archives. I would support early closure—this would be a re-hashing of something already hashed to death—but I'm not doing it unilaterally. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

believe it or not Kamala’s article is about the same excluding media and business dealings John Bois (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

This article and Kamala aren’t related to them being president these articles show what they have done in their lives so far and what’s happened in them John Bois (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Propose adding a sentence summarizing the findings thus far of an IRS audit (covered by AP, ProPublica, NYT, CNN) to read something like:

As of May 2024, an ongoing IRS audit found Trump allegedly double-dipped on tax losses from his Chicago skyscraper, which could cost him upwards of $100 million in back taxes and penalties. Superb Owl (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Any WP:WEIGHT evaluation needs to take into account that the article is already too long (see preceding section). You might say the DUE bar is necessarily a bit higher here. The article already includes a lot that is out of place in a top-level biography, but the existence of bad stuff does not justify the addition of more bad stuff. I can't see spending the space for what amounts to a hypothetical at this point, coverage or no. It certainly does not pass the WP:10YT test. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I respect the work you have done trying to keep this article more concise (that can't be easy and I am happy to help out with that a bit).
I respectfully disagree on 10YT, and think it would easily pass that test. If his indictments are notable even if he has not gone all the way through the appeals process or his impeachments are notable even though the Senate did not remove him, then how is this not notable? Also, how many presidents have been accused by the IRS of tax fraud? Superb Owl (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

If his indictments are notable [...] - I could dismantle the false comparisons piece by piece, but I'm of the opinion that such apples-and-oranges discussion rarely bears fruit. No doubt someone else will be happy to engage you with that. how many presidents have been accused by the IRS of tax fraud? I don't know, you tell me. Again, I don't feel we can afford the space for an unresolved accusation with a mere 100 mil at stake. I haven't read the sources closely; is there an open criminal investigation? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just in the body under wealth where all the other tax info is, or in the lead? DN (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wherever makes sense but probably tax info Superb Owl (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed that our "Real estate" section failed to mention Trump's "tallest and, at least for now, [] last major construction project". I just corrected the omission. A major project resulting in more than $600 million in losses and an alleged tax fraud of $100 million — deserves a mention. The section has an inline link to Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)#Tax deductions which has a few more details. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The short paragraph on the building (see also above section) was reverted with the edit summary "overdetail". As I said before, Trump's last major and tallest ever construction project (92 stories, hotel, retails space, luxury condos) resulting in more than $600 million in losses and an alleged tax fraud of $100 million deserves a mention. Thoughts? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 07:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

There's already been quite a bit of relevant information written about Donad Trump, so I think that part is "excessive detail."Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can we be sure it was 92 stories? TrumpORG had a continuous bad habit of over-zealous counting of floors in almost every building they ever constructed. A bit like counting the number of people at a rally! Just sayin'. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 12:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Does the building have a lobby? If it does, it depends, it seems, on whether he can get away with claiming that the building's lobby is the equivalent of more stories than its actual height. He seems to have started a trend in creative floor numbering, and buyers of luxury condos might find themselves living at much less exalted altitudes than the brochure suggested. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't see how it is entirely undue, ie "over-detail". It seems brief, relevant and significant enough for inclusion in the body, but I would only mention it as "currently under IRS investigation audit/inquiry etc", the dollar amount might seem somewhat superfluous to others. 100 million dollars may not seem like a lot. Must be nice...Cheers. DN (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

agree with including and excluding dollar amount Superb Owl (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Consider this sentence that’s now in the lead:

A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump.

I suggest deleting this sentence, because the special counsel investigation was a much bigger deal when it was still an open question whether Trump would be indicted for colluding with Russia. The special counsel decided not to. That happened years ago, and there’s now more to say about Trump in this lead because of later events.

Based on conversation a couple sections up on this talk page, there’s no consensus to lengthen this sentence to explain that investigators didn’t find evidence to indict Trump or his campaign, or to mention that investigators haven’t been able to say that the Russian interference affected the election outcome. That would have provided important context and clarification.

It’s very hard to justify keeping the words “A special counsel investigation established that” since the remaining words of the sentence are undisputed. I propose to just omit the whole sentence. Unfortunately, foreign governments have often interfered in U.S. elections (and vice versa), but those have generally not been conspiracies with U.S. politicians, so they’ve typically not been covered in the leads of those politicians’ BLPs. I’m not suggesting here to remove or shorten anything in this article’s body. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I support this removal per proposer. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oppose. OP didn't get his way failed to achieve consensus in Talk:Donald_Trump#Russia_in_third_paragraph_of_lead and now just wants to go scorched earth, simply omit the passage entirely, which would be the whitewashing of an important event. Zaathras (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC) (updated verbiage) Zaathras (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Denied. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Zaathras: Your comment is way out of line and you know it. Please strike. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mandruss - user talk for that kind of comment. SPECIFICO talk 22:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

1. Contrary to many years of accepted practice here, as I'm sure you know. 2. I doubt user talk would result in a strike. It stands a better chance here. 3. In any case, this shows less experienced editors that we have a higher standard of behavior at this article. 4. Hardly an undue distraction, until it becomes a drawn-out debate. 5. In any case, user talk for that kind of comment, no? Your correction belongs here but mine does not? Make that make sense. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bud, the OP literally stated "It would be better to entirely omit the sentence in the lead, than to cherry pick the one finding of the special counsel that reflects most poorly on Trump." in the previous section. It is not a wild or specious observation that the OP's 1st choice was modification, and when that failed, the backup choice is complete omission. "Scorched earth" is not such a severe pejorative that it justifies your attempt to censor my initial entry. So, kindly with sugar and cherries, do not do that again. Not your place. If you wish to hate everything after my initial comment, even this one, I permit that. Zaathras (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Comment on content—Bud—not contributor. I did not invent that principle. The initial proposal failed and this one is an alternative proposal. There is nothing improper about it; it happens all the time. So, kindly with sugar and cherries, do not do that again. I'm not going to re-revert because I don't edit war. As for any future such cases, I may well "do it again", depending on my mood. Not your place. Wrong again. Until we have an independent Wikipedia police force (I'd vote for that), it's everybody's place. You have NO CASE here. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

We also have the principle of WP:PACT. Zaathras (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

My NPA policy trumps your PACT essay, and I'd posit it has a lot more community support. That's why your PACT essay is an essay. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's a good thing that there were no NPAs then. Your opinion if one is or is not carries no weight, I'm afraid. I have struck (not censored) some of the wording, so if that is not to your liking now, that would be a you problem. Zaathras (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

You haven't just stricken, you have also inserted, and without indicating such per WP:REDACT, thus destroying context. For the record, this was your comment until just now. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Um, that's kind of the point of striking text - one restates what was previously said in different words. We're done here. Zaathras (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Um, that reasoning is contrary to REDACT. Without underscoring what's new, it's impossible to tell what was previously said. Again, I didn't invent the principle. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oppose removal. simple, straightforward, significant, sourced and succinct. SPECIFICO talk 22:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why? There is a considerable amount of coverage on this throughout Trump's political career and beyond. It remains a significant point in the minds of security experts and historians. What evidence have you presented here that suggests it is now insignificant and will not be discussed and studied well over ten years from now, let alone since 2016? DN (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Who says everything significant has to go in the lead? I already said explicitly that this proposal would not affect the article body. It’s better to leave it entirely in the article body than to have the sentence we have now in the lead. I proposed a way to improve it, that was rejected, so now I’m instead proposing to delete it in the lead, but leave the article body as-is. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

No one, including myself, is suggesting everything significant has to go in the lead. Nor has anyone made it clear why either of these suggestions offer any substantial improvement. DN (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not to put to fine a point on it, but the article Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections isn't likely to remove Trump's name anytime soon. DN (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

We could add that Mueller dispatched numerous Trump cronies and staff to the hoosegow, later to be pardoned by Trump without the usual process. SPECIFICO talk 22:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

You apparently want to pack the sentence full of as much anti-Trump material as possible, while studiously avoiding any mention (1) that the special counsel decided not to indict him; (2) that he has always denied the accusation; (3) that no investigators have concluded the interference made any difference; (4) that foreign election interference is unfortunately common as in the U.S. interference in the 1996 Russian election, etc, etc. I don’t understand why you oppose NPOV so much, it seems like a laudable Wikipedia policy. Not well enforced, but laudable in principle. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Focus on content, not contributor. This kind of comment is not only inappropriate but guaranteed to be ineffective. Why do we have to keep making this point with highly experienced editors? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oppose special counsel concluded that John Bois (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oppose for now. Still waiting on a response with evidence as to why this may be considered UNDUE or non-neutral. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

It’s poorly written because the words “A special counsel investigation established that” are superfluous. Reliable sources are unanimous that Russia interfered, there’s no need to attribute it to the special counsel. If the special counsel is mentioned, that implies Trump was investigated, because that’s what a special counsel is for, and so we’d be obliged to mention that the special counsel did not find sufficient evidence to charge Trump with any wrongdoing, just like we do with other people who are investigated, see e.g. Steven Hatfill. Even if people somehow think mentioning a special counsel doesn’t suggest an investigation of Trump, still there was such an investigation, and its outcome is just as relevant (more so) to the Trump BLP as whether Russia interfered. Since editors here have decided they don’t want to change the sentence, I suggested to get rid of it, not because it’s insignificant, but because it can be adequately covered in the article body. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I imagine the contents of the body that are not covered in the lead has already been discussed quite a bit. What new evidence is there that should give cause to revisit previous consensus? Why compare Trump to Hatfill? DN (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

What previous consensus? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Has this never been brought up before now? DN (talk) 02:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'd be surprised if it hasn't been discussed. That doesn't constitute a consensus that shouldn't be revisited without new argument or a change in the external situation. That's reserved for explicit consensuses—prior discussions showing clear consensus, with or without a consensus list entry. It's a fairly high bar. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

To clarify, I began my original response with "I imagine...". Forgive me if it was presumptuous of me to assume that there had been some form of consensus, explicit or otherwise, but I meant no harm by it. It's been in the lead for some time now. The first discussion I could see was around March 2017 / archive 51, but I could be wrong. Who knows how many since then.

Beyond that, considering he is the current GOP presidential nominee about 3 months out from the election, the timing seems a bit off to assume this aspect of his administration has faded into the ether without RS confirming this claim.

Side note, there is also a new book coming out in September called “Interference: The Inside Story of Trump, Russia, and the Mueller Investigation”.

Cheers. DN (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

AThing, have you actually read Mueller's report? Trump most certainly was investigated, and his hobbling of the inquiry was noted at length. That, along with DOJ policy against charging a sitting POTUS are the reasons Trump was not indicted. SPECIFICO talk 02:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Way deep down in the obscure depths of this BLP is this accurate and balanced sentence: “Despite ‘numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign’, the report found that the prevailing evidence ‘did not establish’ that Trump campaign members conspired or coordinated with Russian interference.[527][528]” Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

So? The lead also doesn't mention the second clause in this accurate and balanced sentence: "The report revealed sweeping Russian interference and detailed how Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged it, believing it would benefit them electorally." Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 07:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

And the prevailing evidence was limited by Trump's non-cooperation and likely obstruction. Also and: please stop repeating the Trump/Barr lie "no collusion". SPECIFICO talk 16:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mueller Report: “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government and its election interference activities”. Deal with it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Let's not cherry-pick and instead try to find some consensus, please. DN (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Misrepresenting that as you have is not acceptable. SPECIFICO talk 16:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

If we can't find consensus here, perhaps we need an RfC so you two can cool off. DN (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Comment: no one has disagreed with the statement at the start of this section that, “It’s very hard to justify keeping the words ‘A special counsel investigation established that’ since the remaining words of the sentence are undisputed.” This in-text attribution is unnecessary, see Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, so I plan to remove that, while leaving the rest of the sentence. This lead doesn’t include footnotes because everything (including Russian interference) is amply supported in the article body. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'd oppose such a removal. This isn't simple attribution. I think the status quo is fine, but if there's agreement that a change is needed, I'd also be fine with something like "Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump, a fact established by a special counsel investigation." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why is it not simple attribution? It was widely reported by all reliable sources both before and after the Mueller Report was written. To the extent this attribution slyly suggests Trump was the subject of a special counsel investigation, shouldn’t we also mention that the investigation didn’t find any collusion by his campaign? Making that determination was the reason why the special counsel was appointed. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm still wondering why we aren't looking at the most recent discussions likely responsible for its inclusion in the first place. We could be beating a dead horse here. DN (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

If the issue of unnecessary attribution was raised before, feel free to give us a link. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've already stated the reasons for my opposition. If anyone wants to change my mind, they can do the work. DN (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose complete removal. A shortening might work, per AYW's own words: "It’s very hard to justify keeping the words “A special counsel investigation established that” since the remaining words of the sentence are undisputed." If we shorten it, I suggest:

"An investigation found that Russia interfered in the election to favor Trump."

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

That’s fine, User:Valjean, although an editor objected elsewhere that wikilinking “an investigation” to the Mueller investigation would be an Easter Egg. I’m not convinced that’s correct, but in the interest of compromise I suggested “The Mueller investigation found that Russia interfered in the election to favor Trump.” User:Space4Time3Continuum2x then reverted, saying there’s an ongoing discussion, but as far as I know, no one has objected at this talk page to

“The Mueller investigation found that Russia interfered in the election to favor Trump.”. No one has explained what the problem is, if any. The reason it’s better is that “special counsel” implied a special investigation of executive branch officers who would have a conflict investigating themselves, and thus we’d have to say in the lead what the special counsel investigation found not just about Russia but also about the executive branch officers who were investigated for violations of law. Anyway, if no one gives any reason why “The Mueller investigation” is worse than “a special counsel investigation” then I will reinsert it. By the way, Space4Time, please see Don't revert due solely to "no consensus”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose removal and the suggested shortened sentence (and Anythingyouwant's premature closing of this discussion). "An investigation" — there was more than one: The intelligence agencies and the FBI, the Senate investigation, Special Counsel aka Mueller. If we're going to shorten, then I suggest Russia interfered in the election to favor Trump. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Russia interfered in the election to favor Trump, with his encouragement. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I’ll jump back onto this discussion since I was pinged. I didn’t close this discussion about removing the sentence. As for putting into the lead that Trump encouraged the Russian interference, I would support that under two conditions. First, our cited source says, “Trump and his campaign aided or encouraged those interference efforts, even if unwittingly” so we would have to include the unwittingly part. Second, it seems obvious to me that Mueller’s primary mission was to determine whether the Trump campaign unlawfully conspired or coordinated with Russia, and Mueller did not establish such unlawful activity, so we would have to include that too. Otherwise, SPECIFICO’s suggestion is fine. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Yeah, you effectively closed it by editing the lead before the discussion had reached a consensus. Unwittingly? puhleaze: "Russia, if you're listening". If the lead doesn't mention whether or not Trump aided or encouraged, we don't have get into that. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  It’s fairly obvious that you disagree with the “unwitting” characterization in our cited source, and you also seem to disagree with the Mueller Report’s conclusion that it could not establish Trump-Russia coordination or conspiracy. You’re welcome to have your own opinions of course, but I wish you would not use them to edit this BLP. You apparently rely on Trump’s statement at a press conference in 2016, urging Russia to help find HRC emails. Trump elaborated the same day in a tweet: “If Russia or any other country or person has Hillary Clinton's 33,000 illegally deleted emails, perhaps they should share them with the FBI!” This seems like a valid thing to say, far short of urging Russia to conspire or coordinate with his campaign, wittingly or not, but I’m willing to follow our sources and put “unwittingly” in the lead. You’re not, but please reconsider. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

If there is consensus for "The Mueller investigation found that Russia interfered in the election to favor Trump.” I suppose it could be an acceptable resolution, although I still don't agree there's an issue with the term "special counsel" in this context, as far as BLP rules are concerned. This all happened before the RECENT SCOTUS opinion, and RS continues to examine the fallout from that debacle into 2024. Cheers. DN (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why do we have another thread about the same sentence as the one in #Russia in third paragraph of lead? First you want to change it, and when that didn't work, you want to remove it entirely. Hell no. That's pretty tendentious. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The previous section proposed to substantially expand the sentence in question. This section has made an alternate proposal to delete it or simply change “special counsel” to something else. I agree with your proposal in this section about changing “special counsel” to something else. There’s nothing tendentious about it. One proposal was rejected so I tried another. And I’ve said repeatedly that I agree with your proposal, which is not tendentious either. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay. Let's move on. Did you suggest something like this?

"The Mueller investigation established that Russia interfered in the election to favor Trump."

Would that work? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that would be okay. And for the record, I specifically asked User:Mandruss if I should start this section, and I followed his wise advice. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose removal. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Until there is consensus, I also oppose. DN (talk) 04:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

This keeps being covered in the top RS discussion of his campaign. Needs to be mentioned. SPECIFICO talk 16:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Recentism (that "2024" is a clue). Doesn't need to be mentioned in this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, it's the next step building on his one great achievement in life, overturning Roe. By your argument, we would cut everything after mid-2023. SPECIFICO talk 03:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would cut about 50% of everything post-2014. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like something that should be covered in Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign, not here. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I disagree, this is not about his campaign this is Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign, and this is where that belongs. Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Trump's personal views on abortion are fine, but in the context of his campaign I'm less convinced it belongs here. DN (talk) 04:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply