Before requesting any edits to this protected article, please familiarise yourself with reliable sourcing requirements. Before posting an edit request on this talk page, please read the reliable sourcing and original research policies. These policies require that information in Wikipedia articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources, and disallow your personal views, observations, interpretations, analyses, or anecdotes from being used. Only content verified by subject experts and other reliable sources may be included, and uncited material may be removed without notice. If your complaint is about an assertion made in the article, check first to see if your proposed change is supported by reliable sources. If it is not, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted. Checking the archives for previous discussions may provide more information. Requests which do not provide citations from reliable sources, or rely on unreliable sources, may be subject to closure without any other response. |
Q1: This page is biased towards/against Trump because it mentions/doesn't mention x. Why won't you fix it?
A1: Having a neutral point of view does not mean giving equal weight to all viewpoints. Rather, it refers to Wikipedia's effort to discuss topics and viewpoints in a roughly equal proportion to the degree that they are discussed in reliable sources, which in political articles is mostly mainstream media, although academic works are also sometimes used. For further information, please read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. Q2: Donald Trump has been convicted in the New York trial on felony charges. Why doesn't the opening sentence say that he is a convicted felon?
A2: Wikipedia works by consensus; new information can only be added if it is either uncontroversial or if there is community consensus in favour of the addition.
A discussion on the topic of whether the first sentence should use the wording of convicted felon was held, and the outcome was 'No Consensus'; per Wikipedia's established policy and practice, this means that change is not endorsed by the community, and that the requested addition should not be made. Q3: A recent request for comment had X votes for support and Y votes for oppose. Why was it closed as no consensus when one position had more support than the other?
A3: Wikipedia is built on consensus, which means that editors and contributors here debate the merits of adding, subtracting, or rearranging the information. Consensus is not a vote, rather it is a discussion among community members over how best to interpret and apply information within the bounds of our policy and guideline infrastructure. Often, but not always, the community finds itself unable to obtain consensus for changes or inclusions to the article. In other cases, the community may decide that consensus exists to add or modify material based on the strength of the arguments made by members citing relevant policy and guideline related material here. This can create confusion for new comers or those unfamiliar with Wikipedia's consensus building processes, especial since consensus can change. While all are welcome to participate in consensus building, keep in mind that the best positions for or against including material are based on policy and guideline pages, so it may be in your best interest to read up on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before diving into the debates. |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Want to add new information about Donald Trump? Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example: |
|
Current consensus
NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:[[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .
official White House portrait as the infobox image. (Dec 2016, Jan 2017, Oct 2017, March 2020) (temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait, enforced when an official public-domain portrait was released on 31 October 2017)
1. Use theQueens, New York City, U.S.
" in the infobox. (Nov 2016, Oct 2018, Feb 2021) "New York City" de-linked. (September 2020)
gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College" and "
receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide", without quoting numbers. (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)
Oct 2016) In the lead section, just write: Removed from the lead per #47.
Forbes estimates his net worth to be [$x.x] billion.
(July 2018, July 2018)
Many of his public statements were controversial or false." in the lead. (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)
without prior military or government service
". (Dec 2016)
Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2017) Include a link to an archive of Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2021)
12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (RM Jan 2017, RM June 2019)
13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 14 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". (Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (Nov 2019)
14. Omit mention of Trump's alleged bathmophobia/fear of slopes. (Feb 2017)
Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text (Diff 8 Jan 2017) has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense (Diff 11 Feb 2018). No new changes should be applied without debate. (RfC Feb 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017, Feb 2017) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (April 2017, RfC April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, July 2017, Dec 2018) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per Dec 2018 and MOS:JOBTITLES RfC Oct 2017. Wikilinks modified per April 2020. Wikilink modified again per July 2020. "45th" de-linked. (Jan 2021)
Wharton School (BS Econ.)", does not mention Fordham University. (April 2017, April 2017, Aug 2020, Dec 2020)
20. Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies
(June 2017, May 2018) (Note: In February 2021, when he was no longer president, the verb tense was changed from "have sparked" to "sparked", without objection.)
have sparked numerous protests.
22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (RfC Aug 2017, upheld by RfC July 2024)
Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision.(Aug 2017, Nov 2017, Dec 2017, Jan 2018, Jan 2018) Wording updated (July 2018) and again (Sep 2018).
25. In citations, do not code the archive-related parameters for sources that are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)
26. Do not include opinions by Michael Hayden and Michael Morell that Trump is a "useful fool […] manipulated by Moscow"
or an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation"
. (RfC April 2018)
27. State that Trump falsely claimed
that Hillary Clinton started the Barack Obama birther
rumors. (April 2018, June 2018)
28. Include, in the Wealth section, a sentence on Jonathan Greenberg's allegation that Trump deceived him in order to get on the Forbes 400 list. (June 2018, June 2018)
29. Include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article. (June 2018)
30. Supersedes #24. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist.
" (RfC Sep 2018, Oct 2018, RfC May 2019)
31. Do not mention Trump's office space donation to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/Push Coalition in 1999. (Nov 2018)
32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. (RfC July 2018, Nov 2018)
33. Do not mention "birtherism" in the lead section. (RfC Nov 2018)
34. Refer to Ivana Zelníčková as a Czech model, with a link to Czechs (people), not Czechoslovakia (country). (Jan 2019)
Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics.(RfC Feb 2019)
37. Resolved: Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (June 2019)
38. Do not state in the lead that Trump is the wealthiest U.S. president ever. (RfC June 2019)
39. Supersedes #21 and #36. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)
40. Include, when discussing Trump's exercise or the lack thereof: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise.
(RfC Aug 2019)
41. Omit book authorship (or lack thereof) from the lead section. (RfC Nov 2019)
42. House and Senate outcomes of the impeachment process are separated by a full stop. For example: He was impeached by the House on December 18, 2019, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted of both charges by the Senate on February 5, 2020.
(Feb 2020)
43. The rules for edits to the lead are no different from those for edits below the lead. For edits that do not conflict with existing consensus: Prior consensus is NOT required. BOLD edits are allowed, subject to normal BRD process. The mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it. (March 2020)
44. The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results. (RfC May 2020)
46. Use the caption "Official portrait, 2017" for the infobox image. (Aug 2020, Jan 2021)
47. Do not mention Trump's net worth or Forbes ranking (or equivalents from other publications) in the lead, nor in the infobox. (Sep 2020)
48. Supersedes #45. Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic should be mentioned in the lead section. There is no consensus on specific wording, but the status quo is Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.
(Oct 2020, RfC Aug 2020)
49. Supersedes #35. Include in lead: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics.
(Dec 2020)
50. Supersedes #17. The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.
(March 2021), amended (July 2021), inclusion of politician (RfC September 2021)
51. Include in the lead that many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as misogynistic. (Aug 2021 and Sep 2021)
52. Supersedes #23. The lead should contain a summary of Trump's actions on immigration, including the Muslim travel ban (cf. item 23), the wall, and the family separation policy. (September 2021)
53. The lead should mention that Trump promotes conspiracy theories. (RfC October 2021)
54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history.
(RfC October 2021)
55. Regarding Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia
, do not wiki-link "Trump's comments" in this manner. (RfC December 2021)
56. Retain the content that Trump never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan
but add context. Current wording can be altered or contextualized; no consensus was achieved on alternate wordings. (RfC November 2021) Trump's expressions of doubt regarding the Russian Bounties Program should be included in some capacity, though there there is no consensus on a specific way to characterize these expressed doubts. (RfC March 2022)
57. Do not mention in the lead Gallup polling that states Trump's the only president to never reach 50% approval rating. (RfC January 2022)
58. Use inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations. (RfC May 2022, discussion on what to cite May 2022)
59. Do not label or categorize Trump as a far-right politician. (RfC August 2022)
60. Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023.
61. When a thread is started with a general assertion that the article is biased for or against Trump (i.e., without a specific, policy-based suggestion for a change to the article), it is to be handled as follows:
- Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias.
- Close the thread using
{{archive top}}
and{{archive bottom}}
, referring to this consensus item. - Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
- Manually archive the thread.
This does not apply to posts that are clearly in bad faith, which are to be removed on sight. (May 2023)
62. The article's description of the five people who died during and subsequent to the January 6 Capitol attack should avoid a) mentioning the causes of death and b) an explicit mention of the Capitol Police Officer who died. (RfC July 2023)
63. Supersedes #18. The alma mater field of the infobox reads: "University of Pennsylvania (BS)". (September 2023)
64. Omit the {{Very long}}
tag. (January 2024)
65. Mention the Abraham Accords in the article; no consensus was achieved on specific wordings. (RfC February 2024)
66. Omit {{infobox criminal}}
. (RfC June 2024)
67. The "Health habits" section includes: "Trump says he has never drunk alcohol, smoked cigarettes, or used drugs. He sleeps about four or five hours a night." (February 2021)
Current consensus page
Should the current consensus page be updated to remove all superseded or obsolete Entries?
At present the current consensus page has a lot of entries which are superseded or obsolete, for example:
21. Superseded by #39
...
36. Superseded by #39
...
39. Supersedes #21 and #36. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)
The shear number of these entries makes the current consensus page longer than it otherwise would be.
Should we remove the superseded and obsolete entries such in the above example 21 and 36 would disappear and 39 would renumbered to 37 (presuming that those were the only two superseded entries in the whole list) and 37 would read:
37. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)
?
Doing this would significantly reduce the current consensus page length and aid readability.
TarnishedPathtalk 10:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- We can't renumber them as that would change which consensus people reference in existing edit summaries. --Nintendofan885T&Cs apply 13:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Why is that a problem? I'm sure people would be able to refer to the banner to see what number they want to use. TarnishedPathtalk 13:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think that was about past edit summaries and comments and the possibility that people will decide to make edits based on the new Consneus #54 rather than the old one. Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that would be much of problem that would last more than the short term. Besides that didn't come across as what they meant. Anyway the benefits of having a much shorter Current consensus section would outweigh what you suggest as a problem. Having a shorter Current consensus section would make reading much faster and enable editors to have a grasp of consensus much faster. TarnishedPathtalk 13:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't mention anything about not shortened it, just about not renumbering. --Nintendofan885T&Cs apply 15:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that would be much of problem that would last more than the short term. Besides that didn't come across as what they meant. Anyway the benefits of having a much shorter Current consensus section would outweigh what you suggest as a problem. Having a shorter Current consensus section would make reading much faster and enable editors to have a grasp of consensus much faster. TarnishedPathtalk 13:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think that was about past edit summaries and comments and the possibility that people will decide to make edits based on the new Consneus #54 rather than the old one. Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Why is that a problem? I'm sure people would be able to refer to the banner to see what number they want to use. TarnishedPathtalk 13:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- We would lose the history of what was superseded or obsoleted and why that was done, and people reading the main space revision history would look up the wrong consensus items. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Couldn't we move obsolete and superseded criteria to a separate subpage and then link it somewhere at the top of the consensus so people can still find the information on them? --Nintendofan885T&Cs apply 15:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Waaay out of my league — I can't even figure out how to continue a numbered list after adding a couple of bullet points after a numbered item. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Couldn't we move obsolete and superseded criteria to a separate subpage and then link it somewhere at the top of the consensus so people can still find the information on them? --Nintendofan885T&Cs apply 15:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- The concern could be partly addressed. Some of the superseded or obsolete items come in groups: 15–19, 23–24, 35–36. These could be respectively combined, resulting in three lines instead of nine.
- FYI there was a proposal a month ago to collapse the whole consensus list [1]. 15:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Bob K31416 (talk)
Supersedes #4. There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …
"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text (Diff 8 Jan 2017) has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense (Diff 11 Feb 2018). No new changes should be applied without debate. (RfC Feb 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017, Feb 2017) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)
Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)
Supersedes #11. The lead paragraph is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality.
" The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (April 2017, RfC April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, July 2017, Dec 2018) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per Dec 2018 and MOS:JOBTITLES RfC Oct 2017. Wikilinks modified per April 2020. Wikilink modified again per July 2020. "45th" de-linked. (Jan 2021)
The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "Wharton School (BS Econ.)
", does not mention Fordham University. (April 2017, April 2017, Aug 2020, Dec 2020)
- Really? To "save" four small-text lines? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time. I was thinking of this,
- Really? To "save" four small-text lines? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text (Diff 8 Jan 2017) has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense (Diff 11 Feb 2018). No new changes should be applied without debate. (RfC Feb 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017, Feb 2017) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (April 2017, RfC April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, July 2017, Dec 2018) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per Dec 2018 and MOS:JOBTITLES RfC Oct 2017. Wikilinks modified per April 2020. Wikilink modified again per July 2020. "45th" de-linked. (Jan 2021)
Wharton School (BS Econ.)", does not mention Fordham University. (April 2017, April 2017, Aug 2020, Dec 2020)
- But if you don't like it, that's OK. No biggie for me. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but cost exceeds benefit. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Actually, it was pretty quick and easy. I could do it for the other two groups too, if it's OK. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Doing it in the actual list is not OK with me, per my last. Little point in doing it in this thread; I think we get the idea. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I thought you meant cost in the time doing it. Whatever cost you were referring to, it looks like it's not going anywhere so that's the end of it for me. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Cost in added complexity, something often misunderstood or overlooked. Sorry for not being clear. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I thought you meant cost in the time doing it. Whatever cost you were referring to, it looks like it's not going anywhere so that's the end of it for me. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Doing it in the actual list is not OK with me, per my last. Little point in doing it in this thread; I think we get the idea. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Actually, it was pretty quick and easy. I could do it for the other two groups too, if it's OK. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Actually I think this is a good idea. Collapsing multiple entries in a row which are superseded or obsolete would address why I started this thread by a fair bit. TarnishedPathtalk 04:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but cost exceeds benefit. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- But if you don't like it, that's OK. No biggie for me. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- This is frankly silly. The superseded items used to be left "expanded" (uncollapsed) but stricken, as shown here. That worked adequately for awhile, then it was decided readability could be improved by collapsing them instead (I was initially opposed; but it has grown on me). That has worked just fine, and now we're complaining about the "difficulty" of having to visually skip the collapsed (and smaller-text) items and do a little more scrolling? Please. When it comes to trading simplicity for readability (dubious in this case), we're already past the point of diminishing returns. As Space4T indicated, we need this for history tracking, and it's fine where it is. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- I am not opposed to removing the superseded entries, but I am strongly opposed to renumbering, as it would be confusing and it would invalidate the archived discussions referring to it. So, as long as no renumbering is attempted, I support it. Melmann 08:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- I understand the reasons for not renumbering and think Bob has raised a great suggestion that doesn’t involve renumbering. TarnishedPathtalk 14:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested, the example I gave above uses the same type of source code that is already in use many times in the list. All it involved was putting before the group of items,
- {{hide| 15. – 19. Superseded or obsolete |headerstyle=text-align:left; font-weight:normal; |multiline=yes |content=
and putting after the group of items,
- }}
Bob K31416 (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm going to do something I have never done before. I am asserting that editors who have worked with the list for years should have far more say in this matter. In this discussion to date, that's Slatersteven, Space4T, Bob K31416, and me. Others should give themselves time to get used to the list before forming judgments that would affect everyone now and future. Perspectives very often change with the passage of time. I won't give this up without doing everything in my power to prevent it. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- That’s not a policy based argument against change or cutting other editors out of discussion. Bob’s suggested above that it’s easy to implement. TarnishedPathtalk 14:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, we don't always need a policy to do something. And I never said it wouldn't be easy to implement. That is not the issue here. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- So, a steel-cage match between Captain Iar and Commander Randy. This should be fun. Zaathras (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- The suggestion may be easy to implement but it makes it much harder for people looking at the main space revision history to find the consensus item in question if they have to read all of them to find #22 mentioned as canceled or obsoleted in #38. And, again, I, for one, don't want to lose the history of each individual consensus item. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
lose the history
I don't think any serious proposal would lose the history. One would move it to a different page; another would create this weird two-level collapsed structure for consecutive superseded/canceled/obsolete items; both to save some minimal eyeball travel and scrolling. Smh. I think some people should leave user interface design to people who have done that for a living. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)- Why not just take all the obsolete items, and move them to a hatted section the end? That keeps all the numbering intact, and saves the most space without needing multi-level collapses. It would be more readable, keep the valid/important ones together at the top where they can be seen without scrolling through 100+ lines, and would be easier to maintain in the future. Items deprecated in the future could just be cut and pasted into the hatted section. The WordsmithTalk to me 23:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Again, cost would exceed benefit. It would add a degree of complexity that would not be justified by the dubious, very minor at best, improvement in readability. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- An excellent idea. The added complexity would not be that great compared to the benefit. TarnishedPathtalk 00:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Why not just take all the obsolete items, and move them to a hatted section the end? That keeps all the numbering intact, and saves the most space without needing multi-level collapses. It would be more readable, keep the valid/important ones together at the top where they can be seen without scrolling through 100+ lines, and would be easier to maintain in the future. Items deprecated in the future could just be cut and pasted into the hatted section. The WordsmithTalk to me 23:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, we don't always need a policy to do something. And I never said it wouldn't be easy to implement. That is not the issue here. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- That’s not a policy based argument against change or cutting other editors out of discussion. Bob’s suggested above that it’s easy to implement. TarnishedPathtalk 14:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just an aside...The Current consensus section is frankly HUGE. I'm in favor of almost anything that would scale it down a bit on the reading page. Shearonink (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- That's exactly why I started this discussion. I'm not wedded to one way of doing it, so much as I'm in favour of almost anything that reduces its size. TarnishedPathtalk 11:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
RfC: Should consensus 22 (not calling Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice) be cancelled?
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
Closure requested.[2] ―Mandruss ☎ 10:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Issue: In a 2017 RfC, it was determined that this article should not refer to Donald Trump as a "liar" or statements by Trump as "lies". This consensus has recently been challenged in this discussion.
Question: Should consensus 22 (not calling Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice) be cancelled?
Cortador (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Tagging editors involved in the above discussion:@Iamreallygoodatcheckers @Space4Time3Continuum2x @Riposte97 @Mandruss @Valjean Cortador (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Discussion (RfC: Should consensus 22 (not calling Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice) be cancelled?)
- No (Summoned by bot) "Canceled" in favor of what exactly? Where is the place in the article you think we should call Trump a liar? I don't see a neutral, encyclopedic way to refer to someone as a liar, when we have "makes false statements" right there. As for calling individual falsehoods lies, I'm a bit more open to that, and it's fine if it's a direct quotation. But honestly, I think this RfC isn't stated clearly and you could do a whole RfC just for "lies". TheSavageNorwegian 23:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- In favour of not having an article-specific editorial policy stating that subject of the article cannot be called a "liar" in Wikivoice independently from what RS state, just like basically any other article on Wikipedia. This RfC wasn't opened to replace this policy with another specific one, but to see whether there is consensus to cancel it. Cortador (talk) 06:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure we don't call other article subjects liars in their articles either. It's just that in this one, the topic keeps getting raised repeatedly. It's just an extension of no contentious MOS:LABELs. My instinct is the minute we remove such a policy the topic will immediately arise again. It's doing no harm as-is. TheSavageNorwegian 14:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- What other subjects are called liars or people who lie by RS? Effectively banning a description used by RS isn't avoiding labels, it's a NPOV violation. Cortador (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure we don't call other article subjects liars in their articles either. It's just that in this one, the topic keeps getting raised repeatedly. It's just an extension of no contentious MOS:LABELs. My instinct is the minute we remove such a policy the topic will immediately arise again. It's doing no harm as-is. TheSavageNorwegian 14:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- In favour of not having an article-specific editorial policy stating that subject of the article cannot be called a "liar" in Wikivoice independently from what RS state, just like basically any other article on Wikipedia. This RfC wasn't opened to replace this policy with another specific one, but to see whether there is consensus to cancel it. Cortador (talk) 06:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- No This is an encyclopedia entry, not a persuasive essay. There is already an entire article about Donald Trump's false or misleading statements, which is linked in this article. That will suffice. Pecopteris (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- No (bot summons) As Pecopteris points out, his false or misleading statements are extensively documented, and when was the last time WP called anyone a liar in wikivoice? Reading the linked discussion, I see nothing really novel or convincing. Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment We would need to see evidence that "Donald Trump is a liar" has become an oft-repeated mainstream point-of-view since 2017, in reliable sources. Has it? Zaathras (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- There is list of sources that is part of the discussion I liked to, as well as a list of sources in the original 2017 discussion. Cortador (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- No/Bad RfC - I don't think this RfC is needed right now, especially with two other fairly significant and contentious ones going on at the same time, and this is an already settled issue and I'm not seeing wide call to rehash it. Otherwise, no, Trump should not be called a "liar" in wiki voice. Being called such would constitute a contentious label, which are "
best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject
" and even still "in-text attribution
" ought to be used, not placing the label in wiki voice. I've quickly searched for reliable source's characterizing Trump as a liar and have been left empty handed. Also, no reliable sourcing has been provided by those who support characterizing Trump as such in wiki voice. Furthermore, the existence of consensus item 22, as pointed out by Mandrus, Valjean, Space4Time, among others in the above discussion, does not conflict with calling many of the false statements by Trump "lies." There is a distinction between labeling someone as a "liar" and reporting how reliable sources have characterized someone's false statement's as lies. The latter is permissible if deemed to be due weight and neutral; though I think it's neutral, I've raised weight concerns for this specific article in the above discussion since I find it to be a largely semantic thing for an article in summary-level detail. Even though reporting something as a lie does imply the person is a liar, implying something is not the same as stating something, and it's also possible to lie and not be a full-fledged liar, and whether or not Trump is that is not a decision for us to make. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 07:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- No. Not encyclopedic language, and the lack of veracity around Trump's statements is already abudently clear. I can't see what benefit there would be to adding the word 'lie' in Wikivoice, and would make the NPoV arguments about this article considerably worse. — Czello (music) 07:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- No/Bad RfC I am unsure that any politicians tell the truth (or any businessman), I am unsure therefore that Trump is unique there. Also I dislike RFC's that ask open questions. Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand you position. If you are unsure if Trump is unique, why do you support a special editorial policy that only exists for the article about him? Cortador (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- No How is this not a MOS:CONTENTIOUS label? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- No - Best to leave it as is. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- No In an effort to WP:Dropthestick, I simply add my voice to the chorus here and move on my merry way. Penguino35 (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes/support of partial revision. We should not use the word "liar" but the word "lie(s) " is justified when the claim is shown to be a falsehood and it is shown that the subject knew it was false at the time of making it. By partially revising C22 to only apply to "liar" we can make the rules concise such that it *would* be MOS:CONTENTIOUS to override it. But as it stands now, the word "lie" is not a value-laden descriptor.
Editing-dude144 (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Jk misread c22. But it is exceedingly confusingly worded. We should revise it to mention that the word "lie" is permitted when intent is provenEditing-dude144 (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- No. There is no justifiable reason to overturn the previous consensus. JoseJan89 (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Partial yes - if he lied, and it’s reported as a lie or falsehood in reliable sources, there is no reason editors should have to juggle words and call it “a false statement” rather than “a lie”. That is a simple synonym that will save space in this article when discussing his false statements. That said, there is no reason that we should be calling him a liar in wikivoice. As House MD says, Everybody Lies. Find me someone who hasn’t told a lie in their life, and I’ve found your newest liar to add to the list (or something like that). So yes, it’s inappropriate to label him as a “liar” - but it’s not inappropriate to call specific statements he made lies if that is the shortest/most concise way to express their falsehood. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- To clarify, and I’m making this comment after preview so I’m indenting it, but I think there should be no restriction on calling a false statement a lie if and only if reliable sources call it a lie or a known falsehood. The consensus currently makes it sound like things should not be called lies in the article at all - and I think there should be a different discussion over when things should be called lies or not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- The difference between a false statement and a lie is that the term lie implies intention to deceive. You would need a psychiatric assessment to determine that, not just a reporter with a BA in communications. A conviction of perjury, lying to federal officials etc. would probably be sufficient as well. TFD (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't believe most readers interpret lie to be "intention to deceive". Anything known to be false, even if used as hyperbole, is a "lie" in the common use of the word. Wiktionary (meaning 3, noun), M-W meaning noun2-1b, and other dictionaries don't universally require that it be done with intent to deceive either. The common meaning of the word "lie" is "falsehood", not that it's intending to deceive, and we should allow editors to call things lies with 3-4 characters rather than having to dance around their words. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't believe most readers interpret lie to be "intention to deceive".
Believe what you want but I don't think either of us knows what most readers are thinking. We can only speak for ourselves and intent is what has always distinguished lie from falsehood for me. (If it doesn't, we need a new word for that.) Back to the M-W entry you cited: Verb(2)-1 "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive". As for Wiktionary, I don't care much about a dictionary that anyone can edit, especially if it differs from people who do vocabulary research for a living. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)- Maybe for clarity I need to state this - I am discussing the use of the noun "lie" to describe lies he has told. Not using the word lie as a verb to say "trump lied" or similar. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Distinction without difference in my book. First noun sense at M-W: "an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive". Subsequent noun senses omit intent, but the first one is usually the most prevalent in common usage. In a BLP, any error should be on the side of caution and saving a few characters is hardly a worthwhile priority. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe for clarity I need to state this - I am discussing the use of the noun "lie" to describe lies he has told. Not using the word lie as a verb to say "trump lied" or similar. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't believe most readers interpret lie to be "intention to deceive". Anything known to be false, even if used as hyperbole, is a "lie" in the common use of the word. Wiktionary (meaning 3, noun), M-W meaning noun2-1b, and other dictionaries don't universally require that it be done with intent to deceive either. The common meaning of the word "lie" is "falsehood", not that it's intending to deceive, and we should allow editors to call things lies with 3-4 characters rather than having to dance around their words. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- The difference between a false statement and a lie is that the term lie implies intention to deceive. You would need a psychiatric assessment to determine that, not just a reporter with a BA in communications. A conviction of perjury, lying to federal officials etc. would probably be sufficient as well. TFD (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- To clarify, and I’m making this comment after preview so I’m indenting it, but I think there should be no restriction on calling a false statement a lie if and only if reliable sources call it a lie or a known falsehood. The consensus currently makes it sound like things should not be called lies in the article at all - and I think there should be a different discussion over when things should be called lies or not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Bad RfC. I'd love to see us clamp down on "should consensus item #X" be changed RfCs. Just propose an actual article change. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. "Lies" is less controversial. But at what number does he become a "liar"? That would be more difficult to decide. Senorangel (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment It mainly depends on context, however Trump is associated with some of the most notable lies in recent American history according to recent mainstream sources like NBC News and Slate. Cheers. DN (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. It's not justifiable that the subject gets special editorial protection in what amounts to a NPOV violation. Cortador (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'll have a bundled reply to some of the comments made here:
- "It's not encyclopedic" - Wikipedia's policy is to reflect what RS state. Consensus 22 violates that principle.
- "No/Bad RfC/Propose an actual article change" - I don't understand this argument, as it labels this RfC as bad, but supports the previous one, which revolves about the exact same question.
- "It's a contentious label" - The article on labels names "cult" and "racist" as examples of such labels, yet Wikipedia calls Trumpism a cult of personality in Wikivoice, as it is backed up by sources. MOS:CONTENTIOUS doesn't ban the use of any specific descriptor. Cortador (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- You have two arguments here. (1) to label Trump as a "liar" is a reflection of RS; and (2) That it is not a MOS:CONTENTIOUS issue because Trumpism is labeled a cult of personality. First of all, I do believe there is a distinction in contention between a cult of personality and a cult, but it's not really important anyway because what the Trumpism argument says about something that is not at issue in this discussion is irrelevant. Also, it could very well be possible that the Trumpism article should not say this anyway because of the MoS. Now, even if you believe that MOS:CONTENTION allows for such labels to be said it wikivoice (which it very clearly doesn't, but I'll regress), you'd still need to prove that the label "liar" is "
widely used by reliable sources
," and this has not been done. No sources have been provided and it would take many before the label could even be considered. R. G. Checkers talk 06:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)- Sources have been provided. I've already done that above.
- The onus is not on me to prove that this article shouldn't have a special rule that excludes content regardless of what RS say. The question of the RfC isn't "Should this article call Trump a liar" but "Should be remove an previous consensus" because that consensus violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Cortador (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Removing the consensus isn't going to change anything. We aren't going to call Donald Trump a liar in Wikivoice regardless of whether this consensus exists, because 1)
widely used in reliable sources
hasn't been satisfied and 2) per MOS:CONTENTIOUS, we couldn't call him a liar in Wikivoice anyway (in which case use in-text attribution
). The only argument that could be made here is that "liar" isn't a contentious term. I consider it to be. Cessaune [talk] 14:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Removing the consensus isn't going to change anything. We aren't going to call Donald Trump a liar in Wikivoice regardless of whether this consensus exists, because 1)
- You have two arguments here. (1) to label Trump as a "liar" is a reflection of RS; and (2) That it is not a MOS:CONTENTIOUS issue because Trumpism is labeled a cult of personality. First of all, I do believe there is a distinction in contention between a cult of personality and a cult, but it's not really important anyway because what the Trumpism argument says about something that is not at issue in this discussion is irrelevant. Also, it could very well be possible that the Trumpism article should not say this anyway because of the MoS. Now, even if you believe that MOS:CONTENTION allows for such labels to be said it wikivoice (which it very clearly doesn't, but I'll regress), you'd still need to prove that the label "liar" is "
- Yes - This may be done only in the situation that multiple WP:RS use the term in a consistent manner, and even then, restricted to the context in which the WP:RS use it. This is consistent with wikipedia policy on any label applied to a person, including negative ones. Absolutely no WP:OR should be allowed here, so again, only when backed by reliable sources using the term, and only in the same context and scope said reliable sources use it in. Fieari (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment — If you're concerned about the article losing credibility by appearing biased against Trump, there's nothing you can do about that. That ship has already sailed. Also, the article already essentially says that Trump is a liar. So this discussion may be of no significance with regard to those points. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes Donald Trump is a liar. That fact is, at this point, indisputable. How can any article about him claim accuracy without stating this salient fact?Coalcity58 (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter; bad RfC: MOS:CONTENTIOUS precludes us from calling Trump a liar in Wikivoice (
...unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution
). Since I consider "liar" to be the very definition of a contentious label, cancelling this consensus item doesn't mean much, at least in practice. Note that this consensus item only refers to Wikivoice.This is a misuse of the RfC system. RfCs on whether a specific item should be "cancelled" are RfCs that shouldn't exist. Unless there is a process issue within the original RfC (in which case the discussion outcome should be brought to WP:AN), one cannot simply hold a discussion on whether or not they can cancel the results of a previous discussion, because this is a practice that is reserved for AN. This circumvents the system in a gross way, because this suggests that if I disagree with the outcome of an RfC I can simply hold another RfC to 'retry' and see if the editor mix this time around is in my favor. No. You can't do that. That's essentially what's happening here, without any malice of course. Cessaune [talk] 15:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)- As the editor who suggested/recommended this RfC framing, I feel a responsibility to respond. It sounds like you're talking about closure review, which is not what this is. Nobody is challenging the correctness, propriety, or legitimacy of #22's closure. Rather, it's simply a group of editors deciding whether the original consensus should be negated based on a change in the external situation—whether #22 should be "superseded" by "nothing". Absent such change—if this were nothing but a change in editor mix—I would oppose the existence of this RfC. The change in the external situation, in case you missed it: At the time #22 was reached, MSM avoided the word lie in droves; now they don't. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Nobody is challenging the correctness, propriety, or legitimacy of #22's closure.
Actually it looks like some might be doing just that. To them, I'd say that ship sailed in 2017. But that's insufficient reason to shut down the RfC, and I see nothing wrong with bringing up policy questions here. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)- In that case, I stick with my original point: cancelling the outcome of the original RfC will have no impact. Cessaune [talk] 17:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, the previous consensus calling him a liar should not be cancelled. There is nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade. Actually, this is one of his defining characteristics, something he is famous for. That would be different for most other BLP pages. This is a nearly unique case. A note to closer. This RfC question was framed in a tricky way. Some contributors who voted "Yes" actually meant "no". My very best wishes (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- It appears maybe you have also been tripped up by the question - your comments seem to reflect mine, that if he's a spade, we should be able to call him a spade. The RfC asks "should we cancel the consensus item that prevents us from calling him a spade". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Partial Yes. Consensus 22 currently reads
Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent
. If reliable sources refer to specific statements as lies then we should not be limited in doing likewise, without necessarily referring to him as being a liar. TarnishedPathtalk 14:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC) - Comment For those who want to call Trump a liar, you could use it to simplify the lead by changing,
- Trump promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics.
to
- Trump promoted conspiracy theories and is the biggest liar in the history of American politics.
which essentially says the same thing. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, as I believe the word "lie" doesn't reflect an encyclopedic tone and is too loaded a word to use on a contentious, BLP article. There are many, many alternatives to this wording. Attributed usage of the word is, of course, fine. CVDX (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - Your description and description of President Trump seems incredibly misleading and biased. 174.109.243.158 (talk) 08:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sorta yes. Calling trump a "liar" doesn't feel encyclopedic at all, nor really saying "lies", HOWEVER, I believe the article should be able to include things such as "trump made numerous inaccurate/false/incorrect statements." A Socialist Trans Girl 22:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- The article already says that, quite a lot. I think this is really a "no" !vote. — Czello (music) 07:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ob
liviously. This RfC is not about"inaccurate/false/incorrect statements"
. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ob
- The article already says that, quite a lot. I think this is really a "no" !vote. — Czello (music) 07:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- No. We look to sources for facts, not for their judgments about what is in Trump's mind. The latter is for readers to decide for themselves, and they are capable of reading between the lines. What's important for our purposes is that the statements are demonstrably false, not whether Trump knows they are false. Wikivoice "lie" is unencyclopedic and unnecessary; attributed "lie" is fine within reasonable limits. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think this is a very good way of wording it. There's a clear difference between false/misleading and lie. One is demonstrable for us to say, the other less so. — Czello (music) 07:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you ignore what a source is stating because you don't consider it a "fact", you are conducting original research. Cortador (talk) 11:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment
The consensus that calls Trump a liar should not be cancelledWe should call Trump a liar. This discussion actually dates back to Trumps earliest appearance on the scene as a viable candidate for president against Hillary Clinton. His relationship with the truth hasn't changed. Call it what you will, but "lies" says it best Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 11:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)- I think you may have misread the question. The consensus is not to call him a liar. I think you want this to be a "yes" !vote. — Czello (music) 11:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, Czello. I have changed it to a comment in order to clarify. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 12:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think you may have misread the question. The consensus is not to call him a liar. I think you want this to be a "yes" !vote. — Czello (music) 11:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Retain the current consensus Our NPOV policy requires us to remain neutral. Under no circumstances should we - Wikipedia we - be calling trump a lair. Our job is not to pile on, its to compile what 2nd and 3rd party publications have said to build an article. Disable this consensus point and we may invite arbcom intervention here or - at the very extreme end of things WMF intervention - to retain our NPOV. Since so many attempting to contribute to this article come from a position of helpful ignorance its important this be stated so we can correct content in line with the NPOV policy we have here on cite. Leave this consensus point alone. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Right now, the consensus is to disregard what sources say in this instance. It's an explicit exception to the NPOV policy. Cortador (talk) 10:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- No That's just unencylopaedic and violation of NPOV. PadFoot (talk)
- Comment — I'm just realizing that this is a bad RfC question. The consensus item is far more nuanced than the question suggests, and we're missing an entire clause. The consensus item issn't even present in the description of the question. The question isn't an accurate summary of the consensus item. The closer's job is going to be a lot harder because of this. Cessaune [talk] 14:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes - but rather his lies should be called out as lies, and we can let the reader determine the implication. Skyerise (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Idea to consider
As a candidate and as president, Trump frequently made false statements[a] in public remarks[4][5] to an extent unprecedented in American politics.[4][6][7]
References
- ^ Greenberg, David (January 28, 2017). "The Perils of Calling Trump a Liar". Politico. Retrieved June 13, 2020.
- ^ Bauder, David (August 29, 2018). "News media hesitate to use 'lie' for Trump's misstatements". Associated Press. Retrieved September 27, 2023.
- ^ Farhi, Paul (June 5, 2019). "Lies? The news media is starting to describe Trump's 'falsehoods' that way". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 11, 2024.
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
finnegan
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
whoppers
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Glasser, Susan B. (August 3, 2018). "It's True: Trump Is Lying More, and He's Doing It on Purpose". The New Yorker. Retrieved January 10, 2019.
- ^ Konnikova, Maria (January 20, 2017). "Trump's Lies vs. Your Brain". Politico. Retrieved March 31, 2018.
Notes
This change would merge the sentence I've disputed as an undue semantic issue with the first sentence of the false and misleading statement's section. Another option may be for the first sentence to say "...Trump frequently made false statements and lies in public remarks...
" as a substitute for the sentence I've disputed, but this would remove context of the shift over time I suppose. So it could be more NPOV-problematic. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 07:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
"despite losing the popular vote"
This clause in the lead reads like a partisan dig. This is not the relevant test in a presidential election. He did not win 'despite' lacking some kind of broader mandate. He won the election, and we should acknowledge that without caveat in the lead. If someone feels the need to explain the electoral college in the body, that might be more appropriate, but I have my doubts. Riposte97 (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. Jack Upland (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's notable, because it's a very rare quirk of the American electoral system. The last two presidents that lost the popular vote were George W. Bush in 2000 and Benjamin Harrison in 1888. Both of their lead sections mention the fact that they lost the popular vote.
- The only other two cases are John Quincy Adams in 1824 and Rutherford B. Hayes in the Compromise of 1877. Both of those were special cases, which are explained in the lead sections of the two biographies. It seems reasonable to mention it in this lead section, too.
- It's not a "partisan rip" if you accept the legitimacy of US electoral law. It's simply pointing out a notable fact. Pecopteris (talk) 07:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- It’s a tough call. Yes it’s very notable, but if I had to trim the lead I think it would be among the first things to go. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 08:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree “while” is more neutral compared to “despite” Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 00:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think I have an idea on how to rewrite that sentence. End the sentence at Hillary Clinton and split into a new sentence. Remove the efn that clarifies how the election system works, as it will now be fully visible. It would now read something along the lines of
Trump won the 2016 presidential election as the Republican Party nominee. Although his primary opponent, Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton, won the popular vote, Trump won the presidency via the electoral college.
Unnamed anon (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC) - A president winning the election while losing the popular vote is notable because it rarely happens, and especially so if said president is an incredibly divisive figure. Cortador (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- As said above, it is a peculiarity of the US electoral system this can happen, thus is notable so that non-Americans can understand how he won. Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Repeating what I said when I reverted the bold edit: removing the information that he did not win the popular vote is whitewashing, especially considering that he doesn't just claim to have won the election in 2020, he also claims that he won the popular vote in 2016 — never mind that his opponents got 3 million more votes in 2016 and 7 million more in 2020. Non-Americans need an explanation why the person who received the majority of the votes in 2016 did not win the election. The note is the best and shortest way to do this, and it was much discussed and amended several times. Alternative wording without the alleged MOS:EDITORIAL words "while" or "despite":
Trump, the Republican Party nominee, won the 2016 presidential election; Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party nominee, won the popular vote.
Whether current or alternative wording, the note is needed. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)- 1) It's not whitewashing to observe the election result. It's blackwashing (if this term doesn't yet exist, I’m coining it) to add a caveat to a lawful election. Trump's false claims are irrrelevant to assessing that question.
- 2) Most democracies have an internal executive, so most non-Americans would immediately intuit this. The 'popular vote' is a myopic American preoccupation.
- 3) It doesn't belong in the lead. Riposte97 (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Most democracies have
a what? The U.S. is a presidential republic where the president is not elected by popular vote but by an electoral college that favors the smaller states with more electoral votes per person. E.g., in 2016 California had one elector per 712,000 people while Wyoming had one elector per 195,000, i.e., a vote cast in Wyoming was worth 3.6 votes cast in California. I’m fairly certain that many Americans can’t intuit this, let alone people living in presidential republics such as Brazil, where the president is elected by direct vote and each vote is worth exactly one vote, or in parliamentary republics where a parliament elected by popular vote elects a head of government. Anyway, I kind of like Giovanosky's cogent bold edit, so I didn't bother to count my reverts and left it as is. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)- Your explanation of parliamentary democracy is incorrect. An internal executive means that the executive is formed by the parliamentary party with the most seats. The parliament does not elect the head of government. This means that the 'popular vote' can have little to do with who heads the government. For an American, compare it to an electoral college, where the electors are also congressmen. That is the more usual system around the world, and why I say that the 'popular vote' is a very specific preoccupation mostly found on the American left.
- Giovanosky's edit certainly reads better, but the material simply does not belong in the lead. It is superfluous for most readers. Riposte97 (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Parliamentary democracies have different ways of forming governments. In Poland, e.g., the president and head of state is elected by popular vote and appoints the prime minister and the cabinet members. Their appointments must be confirmed by more than half of the members of parliament. In Germany, the ceremonial head of state/president nominates the candidate for the chancellorship proposed by the party or coalition of parties with the most votes, and the full parliament then votes. The coalition of parties may not include the party with the most votes (e.g. 30%), but it still represents the majority of popular votes cast. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Changed the preposition from "despite" to "while". 1) "while" is already used in the body. 2) "despite" gives the impression that there's something nefarious about winning the election and losing the popular vote. 3) We had a discussion about this a while ago (can't be bothered to comb through the archives) and there was tentative support to change the preposition from "despite" to "while". Cessaune [talk] 18:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- The lead initially said "although" and "but" in 2020, then "while" until it was changed to "despite" in Oct 22. After this discussion in June 2023 it reverted to "while". Changed to "despite" on June 1, 2024, I reverted to "while" on June 9, and was reverted a few hours later. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Seems like
while
was the long term version and I see no compelling evidence that there’s consensus to change it - so it should be restored to 'while' and if editor(s) want to open a discussion to change that they can do so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Seems like
- The lead initially said "although" and "but" in 2020, then "while" until it was changed to "despite" in Oct 22. After this discussion in June 2023 it reverted to "while". Changed to "despite" on June 1, 2024, I reverted to "while" on June 9, and was reverted a few hours later. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Best to restore long-term version. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree, this information is pretty notable, especially considering WP:GLOBAL and WP:GLOBALIZE. The US is the only presidential republic I know of where a candidate can win a national election without a majority. Although I also think "while" is more appropriate than "despite" for an encyclopedic, NPOV tone. CVDX (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- "The US is the only presidential republic I know of where a candidate can win a national election without a majority." Presidential perhaps, but the United Kingdom has a history of political parties winning the popular vote and still having less parliament seats than their opponents. See for example the February 1974 United Kingdom general election: "Although Heath's incumbent Conservative government polled the most votes by a small margin, the Conservatives were overtaken in terms of seats by Wilson's Labour Party because of a more efficiently distributed Labour vote. Ultimately, the decision by the seven Ulster Unionist MPs not to take the Conservative whip proved decisive in giving Labour a slim plurality of seats. The other four unionists elected were hardliners who were not affiliated with the UUP." Dimadick (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- The UK Conservative government won a majority of seats despite getting less than 50% of the vote and Labour is expected to win a "super majority" despite polling at less than 50%.
- Of course, the UK isn't a presidential republic, but the U.S. is the only stable democracy that is. TFD (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- "The US is the only presidential republic I know of where a candidate can win a national election without a majority." Presidential perhaps, but the United Kingdom has a history of political parties winning the popular vote and still having less parliament seats than their opponents. See for example the February 1974 United Kingdom general election: "Although Heath's incumbent Conservative government polled the most votes by a small margin, the Conservatives were overtaken in terms of seats by Wilson's Labour Party because of a more efficiently distributed Labour vote. Ultimately, the decision by the seven Ulster Unionist MPs not to take the Conservative whip proved decisive in giving Labour a slim plurality of seats. The other four unionists elected were hardliners who were not affiliated with the UUP." Dimadick (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Both George W. Bush & Benjamin Harrison mention "despite losing the popular vote". All of them should be changed to "while" or all of them should be kept at "despite" (I'd support the latter). It feels more like a partisan dig when only this one is brought up. AG202 (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse removing "despite". It's a word to watch; see WP:DESPITE. There's no reason why it should be favoured over the more neutral "while". — Czello (music) 14:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment. "While" was restored in this article three weeks ago. The pages of George W. Bush and Benjamin Harrison are of no concern here. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
More in depth Coronavirus Policy should be added.
There should be mention of the CARES Act (the largest stimulus bill in American history) and Operation Warp Speed (The plan governing Vaccine Research and Manufacturing) within the Presidency Section of Donald Trump. specifically relating to his handling of the Covid-19 Pandemic. I do think they fit the qualifications that have been mentioned on this talk page of him personally lauding them as achievements as he did heavily campaign on the stimulus checks provided by the legislation alongside vaccine production during his 2020 campaign (alongside general pandemic downplaying of course). It should be noted I do not expect the citations that I presented regarding him taking credit for them to be used as a reference in any actual proposed addition to it as, like most interviews Trump permits, they are usually only through interviewers who are pretty lightweight when it comes to journalism. I am presenting them regardless as Trump's "personal involvement" in a policy appears to be a requirement for it's mention in the 'Presidency' section of his article. Despite the lack of hard-hitting journalism of his interviewers, they're still accurate indicators of what he thinks of the policies since he's literally taking credit for them in the interviews and saying that he's proud of them. The references are as follows: [1][2][3][4]
Additionally, both the actual legislative policy that passed under his administration and the background policy of vaccine research and distribution are obviously important given they were half of the U.S. government's response to the pandemic (the other half being Biden's). I have provided additional citations that should verify that these actions taken by the administration are in fact notable given, once again, they were half of the U.S. Government's response to a global pandemic and the second worse economic downturn in American history only after the Great Depression. The references are as follows: [5][6][7][8][9][10] LosPajaros (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Storm, Meg (September 13, 2023). "'I NEVER GOT THE CREDIT I DESERVE': DONALD TRUMP DEFENDS HIS ADMINISTRATION'S RESPONSE TO THE COVID PANDEMIC". Megynkelly.com.
- ^ Raskin, Sam (August 8, 2021). "Donald Trump: 100M people might have died without Operation Warp Speed". New York Post.
- ^ Seddiq, Oma (December 29, 2020). "Trump's demand for $2,000 stimulus checks could cost the GOP its Senate majority, but reveals his enduring influence within the party". Business Insider.
- ^ Journal, Elizabeth Findell | Photographs by Brenda Bazán for The Wall Street (November 8, 2020). "Why Democrats Lost So Many South Texas Latinos—the Economy". The Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Archived from the original on February 15, 2021. Retrieved November 11, 2020.
- ^ "Operation Warp Speed: implications for global vaccine security". March 26, 2021.
- ^ "How the 'deep state' scientists vilified by Trump helped him deliver an unprecedented achievement". The Washington Post. December 14, 2020.
- ^ "Getting the facts right on Operation Warp Speed". The Hill. March 20, 2021.
- ^ "The CARES Act Has Passed: Here Are The Highlights". Forbes. March 29, 2020.
- ^ "Everything You Need To Know About Your $1,200 Stimulus Check". Forbes. April 13, 2020.
- ^ "President Trump Signs $2 Trillion Coronavirus Rescue Package Into Law". NPR. March 27, 2020.
No. Quoting U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic: During 2020 and 2021, the U.S. Congress passed major stimulus packages as part of an aggressive effort to fight both the pandemic and its economic impact. Three major bills were passed: the CARES Act, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021.
Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- How does that purport they are not relevant for mention though? All legislation passes through Congress so that's not specifically unique. Two out of three acts you mentioned passed and were supported by the Trump administration and, with the addition of Operation Warp Speed, all of them are still big chunks of the U.S. government's policy towards COVID-19 that Trump has openly taken credit for. LosPajaros (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Space4Time3Continuum2x and 🖖: Could you elaborate on the reasoning behind your opposition to it's inclusion? I'm sorry if I'm missing something but I'm not seeing a reason for why it should not be included via the quote that you provided. Mention of the American Rescue Plan is also mentioned on Joe Biden's 'Presidency' section of his page so I'm not sure how mention of the CARES Act or the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 would be a significant deviation from expected material in Trump's respective 'Presidency' section. You had previously stated that inclusion of material on this article must relate to information that is both notable and had personal support from Trump himself. The references I have provided should meet both of those requirements. LosPajaros (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the covid vaccine, see reference 7. "Getting the facts right on Operation Warp Speed". The Hill. March 20, 2021. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Scholarly analysts e.g. the Columbia study, have concluded that Trump's negligence and willful misrepresentations led to hundreds of thousands of needless American deaths. We also have his own words to Bob Woodward on this point. Those could both be more prominently conveyed, along with the maladministration of the relief funds that was largely responsible for the subsequent inflation. SPECIFICO talk 02:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- That may very well be an accurate assessment. I'm not going to make a claim they were objectively good or bad. Even if the conclusion made in this Talk section is that the legislation and vaccine programs were ill-formed and laced with problems, notable failed policy is still notable policy. Whether it's Ford's WIN, Reagan's Star Wars, or Clinton/Bush's respective proposals to healthcare and social security, even unsuccessful policy, if notable enough, should be mentioned in relation to their Presidencies. LosPajaros (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- "should be mentioned in relation to their Presidencies" We have separate articles about their respective presidencies. It is unclear why the policies should also be mentioned in the bio articles. Dimadick (talk) 07:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: They were rooted only in Trump's personal proclivities, elevated above any policy or administrative objective. SPECIFICO talk 17:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Notable policy associated with a President is always mentioned in the 'Presidency' section of their Wikipedia article. There's no reason why Trump should be the exception to that rule. Especially since He has expressed personal support for them occurring. LosPajaros (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- "should be mentioned in relation to their Presidencies" We have separate articles about their respective presidencies. It is unclear why the policies should also be mentioned in the bio articles. Dimadick (talk) 07:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- That may very well be an accurate assessment. I'm not going to make a claim they were objectively good or bad. Even if the conclusion made in this Talk section is that the legislation and vaccine programs were ill-formed and laced with problems, notable failed policy is still notable policy. Whether it's Ford's WIN, Reagan's Star Wars, or Clinton/Bush's respective proposals to healthcare and social security, even unsuccessful policy, if notable enough, should be mentioned in relation to their Presidencies. LosPajaros (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
covid-19 spending package
"since no reason was provided in the Talk section in opposition"
No consensus. I'm not confident everything in this edit is due, but that isn't to say a consensus isn't possible. DN (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sure thing. The points I presented I believe still stand regarding notability of the legislation alongside the personal involvement and support of Trump himself. Those were the requirements previously laid out by @Space4Time3Continuum2x: in terms of whether or not policy should be mentioned on his Wikipedia page. Additionally, in prior Talk page discussions relating to the possible addition of the Abraham Accords he has himself stated that a simple 'No' or 'Yes' comment was not significant enough to be counted as a 'vote'. My apologies if my following of those instructions may have in any way come off in a negative or insolent manner.
- The Quotes I have provided relating to Trump's personal support of the legislation are as follows:[1][2][3][4][5]
- The Quotes I have provided relating to notability of the legislation in addition to Operation Warp Speed are as follows:[6][7][8][9][10][11] LosPajaros (talk) 05:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Does it necessarily need it's own sub-section? Could it be integrated into to existing COVID-19 pandemic section, as it is extensive. DN (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- I am not opposed to it being integrated into the existing subsection. My contention was that it should qualify for mention in this Wikipedia article. LosPajaros (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Does it necessarily need it's own sub-section? Could it be integrated into to existing COVID-19 pandemic section, as it is extensive. DN (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
no reason was provided
— no reason you accept? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)- Thanks for providing the ABC source. I had forgotten how Trump's name ended up on the IRS checks.
I don't know too much about it ... I'm sure people will be very happy to get a big, fat, beautiful check and my name is on it.
So, "personal support" by sharpie or, in this case, the IRS, without precedent, printing the sitting president's name "on a payment from the IRS, an agency that has often sought to maintain its independence from partisan politics". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, when I said 'no reason provided' I was referring to the initial response you made where you just said 'No' and provided a quote without elaboration of the reason behind it. I understand you probably had a decent reasoning behind your opposition but the only statement in opposition that was made was a 'No' and there wasn't an explanation the point you were trying to make. The personal support of Trump is shown in both how he takes credit for the bills, and how he used them to campaign in 2020. I thought both rose to the level of support you had previously said was necessary. LosPajaros (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but we cannot present his false narratives without identifying them as such, and that's pointless. SPECIFICO talk 19:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Trump taking credit for and supporting legislation he has lied about its effects of like the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are already mentioned in this article. In both, he lied about its effects, openly supported it, and campaigned on it. Trump lies quite often, that's nothing new. But both of the qualifications of notability and personal support have been met. If there is consensus that he lied or mislead the public about this policy and such a note is added that is fine also and I would support that because it would provide added nuance.LosPajaros (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- I myself what? SPECIFICO talk 22:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- sorry my apologies. I thought you were a different user. I agree that further context should be provided to indicate nuance about these policies LosPajaros (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- You reverted twice to your preferred version, despite the rather prominent "You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message" warning. Be thankful you didn't earn a block for that. Zaathras (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I understand. I'm still not super used to how edits for Talk discussions work. I'll revert my edits. Is there a rule set I can look at to see the rules that are typically followed for Talk discussion posts? thank you. LosPajaros (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- @LosPajaros: Re: [3][4]. If you choose to make substantive changes to your comment after replies, especially when such changes destroy context, you have to do it by deleting (striking) and inserting (underscoring) text per the instructions at WP:REDACT. After your changes, SPECIFICO's comment "I myself what?" makes no sense; hence the destroyed context. I'm half inclined to fix this for you, but I'll settle for your agreement not to do this again. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Okay thank you for that information. I'll make sure to use it in the future. LosPajaros (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- You reverted twice to your preferred version, despite the rather prominent "You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message" warning. Be thankful you didn't earn a block for that. Zaathras (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Continuing on the topic of discussion, I agree that context should be provided to address false narratives. If there were to be an addition of such context regarding Trump's support of the stimulus spending I would be perfectly fine with that. The notability of the legislation and the fact that Trump did express open support for the legislation has not been questioned though. And both of those qualities were what was previously required for addition onto this page. The legislation is the most sizeable passed during his presidency and he openly supported its provisions both during the drafting of it and on the campaign trail. LosPajaros (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Given there has continued to not be a direct, straightforward position given for opposition to this legislations inclusion is it fair to say that merit for inclusion has been met? From my interpretation of the above comments (and please correct me if my interpretation is off in any way) the only direct position taken is that if inclusion is to be made it should make direct note and refute falsehoods made by Trump in his support for the legislation. If there is still opposition to it's inclusion it should be stated as such in a clear and direct manner so that it can either be addressed or so this discussion can end for good. LosPajaros (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Too much detail for legislation Congress passed without Trump's input, except for insisting that his name be on the checks.
Mr. Trump had a hand in the agreement, if only by keeping his distance from the talks. ... Work it out yourselves, Mr. Trump told the pair on a conference call.
([NYT]) WP:NOCON: "When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." There's no consensus to add, IMO. As others have said, the material could be added to the Presidency article, and/or to COVID-19 pandemic in the United States and/or 116th United States Congress. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)- I understand where you're coming from but I don't see how the "support" and "personal involvement" for these pieces of legislation are any less involved than the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. After all, The bulk of it was the brainchild of Paul Ryan over anyone else. The multiple references I provided (not just the one about his name on the checks) have shown a consistent level of support both during the drafting of the bills and after they were politically salient. He has also supported the legislation on a level consistent with legislation already mentioned in this article and notability of the programs have not been questioned. Is this legislation any different in notability and personal support than legislation already present on his page? Potential addition does not have to be as detailed as the initial edit if that's one of your sticking points. That was mainly added just to provide a baseline for information that could be culled or built upon with community involvement. LosPajaros (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- As you may recall, I too gave a reasoned objection to your proposal. SPECIFICO talk 01:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- From how I'm reading your reply it appears that the reason for your opposition is that there is no consensus regarding the legislation. However, almost the entirety of any lack of consensus comes from your opposition. And given that your opposition is that there is a lack of consensus resulting from your opposition that there's a lack of consensus doesn't that become a self-fulfilling-prophecy-esque scenario? In the discussion (and again, correct me if I'm interpreting anyone's position here incorrectly) there appears to me multiple people either in favor of it's addition -provided certain notes- or neutral but not opposed to it's addition. If that's the case, does that go against your point that there's no consensus on it? LosPajaros (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- I understand where you're coming from but I don't see how the "support" and "personal involvement" for these pieces of legislation are any less involved than the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. After all, The bulk of it was the brainchild of Paul Ryan over anyone else. The multiple references I provided (not just the one about his name on the checks) have shown a consistent level of support both during the drafting of the bills and after they were politically salient. He has also supported the legislation on a level consistent with legislation already mentioned in this article and notability of the programs have not been questioned. Is this legislation any different in notability and personal support than legislation already present on his page? Potential addition does not have to be as detailed as the initial edit if that's one of your sticking points. That was mainly added just to provide a baseline for information that could be culled or built upon with community involvement. LosPajaros (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Too much detail for legislation Congress passed without Trump's input, except for insisting that his name be on the checks.
- sorry my apologies. I thought you were a different user. I agree that further context should be provided to indicate nuance about these policies LosPajaros (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- I myself what? SPECIFICO talk 22:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Trump taking credit for and supporting legislation he has lied about its effects of like the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are already mentioned in this article. In both, he lied about its effects, openly supported it, and campaigned on it. Trump lies quite often, that's nothing new. But both of the qualifications of notability and personal support have been met. If there is consensus that he lied or mislead the public about this policy and such a note is added that is fine also and I would support that because it would provide added nuance.LosPajaros (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but we cannot present his false narratives without identifying them as such, and that's pointless. SPECIFICO talk 19:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Lead sentence - civil liability for sexual abuse, defamation, financial fraud
Recent edits of the last sentence of the lead:
In civil proceedings, Trump was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation in 2023 and for financial fraud in 2024.
In civil proceedings between 2023 and 2024, Trump was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation and for financial fraud.
In civil proceedings, Trump was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation and for financial fraud between 2023 and 2024.
In civil proceedings, Trump was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation in 2023 and 2024 and for financial fraud in 2024.
In civil proceedings, Trump was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation and for financial fraud in 2023 and 2024, respectively.
In civil proceedings, Trump was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation in 2023, defamation in 2024, and for financial fraud in 2024.
The main article E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump is about both lawsuits Carroll brought against Trump. The first one ("Carroll I", Carroll v. Trump (1:20-cv-07311), filed in 2019), was for defamation. After New York passed the Adult Survivors Act in 2022, allowing "victims of sexual offenses for which the statute of limitations has lapsed to file civil suits for a one-year period from November 24, 2022, to November 24, 2023", Carrol brought a second lawsuit ("Carroll II", CARROLL v. TRUMP (2023), 22-cv-10016) for sexual battery and defamation (different incidents of defamation than those in "Carroll I"). Carroll II went to trial first, verdict in May 2023, $5 million in damages. Carroll I followed in January 2024, $83.3 million in emotional, reputational, and punitive damages. Condensing that information into one clause with the link to the main article some editors insist we absolutely need to have (because heaven forbid people should feel the need to read the body) makes for a very long Wikilink. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Does seem wordy, but hard to see how else we can say three separate things. Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know if there is a better way to do this. It's inevitably wordy. Wordings 2, 3, and 4 avoid the overly long wikilink while simultaneously being true. Cessaune [talk] 22:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Lead sentence: proposal to add "convicted felon"
Donald Trump is a convicted felon now, and it is important context regarding his numerous civil and criminal trials that are ongoing. BasedGigachad (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Read the FAQ. Meters (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Why can I reply to this “talk” but not Joe Biden’s? 152.86.241.175 (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Residence in the infobox
Hi, is it time to change the parameter from |residence=Mar-a-Lago, Palm Beach, Florida
to |residence=Palm Beach, Florida
? This was discussed before. Thedarkknightli (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- It was a discussion with very low participation, just you and me. Personally, I prefer the simpler Palm Beach, Florida. (Now that the Supreme Court has bestowed absolute royal immunity for official acts on King Former Guy, has Mar-a-Lago become the American Buckingham Palace?) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Thanks for your timely reply, @Space4Time3Continuum2x! Is it necessary to start an RfC on this, then? Thedarkknightli (talk) 10:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Added section on potential assassination attempt
Trump was just shot. See 2024 presidential campaign for my section on it. Please update it as needed as we get more information. ~ AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 22:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is no such evidence. Patience. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is WP:BREAKING news. We dont know if he was hit or not, or if he was even the target. We need to wait. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- According to secret service he was shaken but unharmed Jtasp111 (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is WP:BREAKING news. We dont know if he was hit or not, or if he was even the target. We need to wait. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
how would we include trump being taken off stage by secret service in the article after he was (possibly) just shot at?
for those confused on what i'm referencing: https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/13/politics/video/trump-secret-service-butler-pennsylvania-digvid
basically, shooting noises are heard while donald trump is being protected by secret service members—the crowd starts screaming while the "shots" are fired in rapid secession. do we wait for more info about this before writing? or would we write about this now with smthn along the lines of "trump was hosting a rally on january 13 2024 in pennsylvania, when sudden popping noises were heard that caused him to be rushed off stage due to a possible assassination attempt."
sorry abt the bad grammar, in a rush writing this!
RidgelantRL (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- We don't yet. We wait until we know what happened. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/522100/live-updates-trump-injured-after-shots-heard-at-rally-in-pennsylvania Newusereditaccount (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- We do now. Trump rally shooting was assassination attempt on ex-president, FBI says.
- Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/13/trump-rally-pennsylvania/ 111.249.88.166 (talk) 11:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Probably post-presidency section, but wait until we get more info probably Jtasp111 (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 July 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change
An assassination attempt was made on Trump at a campaign rally on July 13, 2024.
to
An assassination attempt was made on Trump at a campaign rally on July 13, 2024.
207.96.32.81 (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- should be cited too
- https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/07/13/donald-trump-rushed-off-stage-secret-service-rally/74396110007/
- https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/jul/13/sound-gunshots-sparks-chaos-trump-rally-pennsylvan/
- https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/election-biden-trump-07-13-24/index.html Pigeonbloodblues (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Already done Mgasparin (talk) 07:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
It has not been confirmed as an attempted assasiation. Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's been confirmed as such. GoodDay (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I thought it was still being investigated. Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 July 2024 (2)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add “convicted felon” to the summary at the top of his biography. 2600:1001:B040:C7CA:D0C1:1CB6:71F6:8241 (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done: See the FAQ. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 23:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 July 2024 (3)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "One person was killed in the incident." (in subsection "2024 presidential campaign" under "Post-presidency (2021–present)") to "Two people, including the perpetrator, were killed in the incident." RidgelantRL (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Partly done The sentence has already been changed. Mgasparin (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
"Trump was struck by a bullet" we say
there are reports he was struck by glass from a shattered teleprompter
https://x.com/alexsalvinews/status/1812271945401929755
https://x.com/juliegraceb/status/1812269074367320509
slow down, we are not a breaking news wire soibangla (talk) 02:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- On the one hand we have a twitter post citing Newsmax, which is described in Wikipedia as spreading conspiracy theories, which is citing an unnamed purported officer. On the other hand we have USAToday stating bullet wound in their own words:
Former President Donald Trump was "fine" Saturday night after an assassination attempt left him with a bullet wound to the ear.
KiharaNoukan (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Re "there are reports he was struck by glass from a shattered teleprompter" — Here's the part of a C-SPAN video just after the shooting [5]. Note that the two teleprompters are still intact. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Enforced BRD
Just a reminder that this page is under enforced BRD, You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message
. Pecopteris, you may want to review this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I have. Why did you ping me, specifically? Pecopteris (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I cannot restore my edit, but I think you should, based on what I wrote on your Talk page soibangla (talk) 02:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Because you're reverting a lot of other editors and it is easy to fall foul of the sanction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Pecopteris, to answer the question you posed to me in an edit summary, no RS call it an "assassination attempt" and therefore it is inappropriate for us to do so. It likely was, but it is "being investigated as an assassination attempt". – Muboshgu (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just as an example, USA Today, New York Post, Johnathan Turley at The Hill and others call it an assassination attempt. By the time I finish writing this comment and press send, other RS will have said the same thing.
- Of course, investigations are underway as to the scale and scope of the plot. But no RS has proposed a possible motive for shooting bullets at Donald Trump's head other than an assassination attempt. "Assassination" is just another term for murder. If you aim a gun at someone's head and fire 5 bullets at them, that's attempted murder. Pecopteris (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's WP:OR. Please read WP:RSBREAKING and don't consider Jonathan Turley or other op-ed columnists to be authoritative. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Per NBC and other RS, the FBI is now calling it an "attempted assassination". So, that should settle it. Pecopteris (talk) 04:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's WP:OR. Please read WP:RSBREAKING and don't consider Jonathan Turley or other op-ed columnists to be authoritative. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Choppy Sentences
Can the section "Attempted Assassination" under "2024 Presidential Campaign" be fixed pls because the sentences are choppy and hard to read. I would edit it myself, but I'm not extended auto confirmed. InfiniteSword (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Shooting or assassination attempt?
There is a move request discussion on whether 2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally should be renamed and moved to 2024 assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Prcc27 (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think we should wait until we have confirmation from reliable sources. Until then people can monitor this page. Ampersand69387 (talk) 03:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Mueller Report in the lead
A sentence in the lead has been edited as follows: “A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump, but did not establish that the Trump campaign was involved.” I disagree with that edit, and find it quite preposterous actually. Without the last few stricken words, there is a strong implication that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian interference.
Per the lead of our article about the Mueller special counsel investigation, the report explicitly said that "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities". NPOV requires that this finding of the Report be briefly summarized in our lead. It is this kind of slanted and selective editing that misleads readers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. Pecopteris (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Anyone have any more comments about this? I admit it’s not as fascinating as an attempted assassination. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Almost identical discussions here and here failed. My take is, we need more editors to enter this discussion and then we should lock in the text with the rest of the consensus. IMO reverting would be fine but I also think that any short discussion just kicks the can down the road yet again. If editors had taken more responsibility in previous discussions we wouldn't have to worry about this. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
ID'd
The news is reporting that (Redacted) was neutralized by the Secret Service while perched atop a building at American Glass Research in Butler. Delectable1 (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- (Redacted). For now only NYPost and there's no rush, if accurate it will be confirmed by RS very soon. GordonGlottal (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- (Redacted), I mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delectable1 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Apparently the NY Post was reliable, Thomas Matthew Crooks was reported and it was right, from Bethel Park, a Pittsburgh suburb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delectable1 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- (Redacted), I mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delectable1 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
NYT does not say he was shot
nor do WaPo, CNN or BBC; Reuters and USAToday do; we should say "injured" for now, until this is clarified.
NYT: "The Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies have not yet publicly confirmed that Mr. Trump was shot in the ear, saying only that shots were fired and that the former president was “safe.”" soibangla (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree—There is a photo by Doug Mills of a streak passing his right ear at high speed but it could still be shrapnel from some other object that got hit or of the wrong moment. GordonGlottal (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Really? CNN isn't saying it?
- CNN:
Former President Donald Trump was shot in the ear Saturday evening while speaking onstage at his rally in Butler, Pennsylvania
- Do you have any sources contradicting? We have more than enough RS affirming he was shot in his ear in their own voice. KiharaNoukan (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is absolutely no penalty to being careful. No one has any information about what hit his ear; CNN is just making a different decision about how to treat his statement. Please immediately self-revert under arbitration restriction
you may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message
to avoid being blocked from editing. GordonGlottal (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)- Sure, and here are more RS on his ear being shot, not just CNN:
- Reuters:
Donald Trump was shot in the ear during a Saturday campaign rally, in an attack that left the Republican presidential candidate's face streaked with blood and prompted his security agents to swarm him
- USA Today (which was cited in the source):
Former President Donald Trump was "fine" Saturday night after an assassination attempt left him with a bullet wound to the ear.
- Your edit summary's claim is factually incorrect, and now we're dealing with ad hoc rationalization that, applied logically, would preclude inclusion of any details at all about this incident. The only disputing claims given were from the earlier talk section, where the original poster cited twitter posts from conspiracy theory outlet Newsmax. KiharaNoukan (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- but others don't and "The Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies have not yet publicly confirmed that Mr. Trump was shot in the ear, saying only that shots were fired and that the former president was "safe."
- we need to slow down soibangla (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- There are dozens if not hundreds of cameras trained at the event, copious amounts of High-def video footage and photos, numerous journalists at the event, and analysts available to all these mainstream RS. They have described it in their own words as a shot in the ear based on their own expertise and newsrooms. As you mentioned, CNN even updated their description of the event after they were able to get new information. Inclusion of Trump being shot in the ear has easily met standards for inclusion. Is every detail in RS only made from Secret Service accounting?
- Again, this is ad hoc rationalization that does not fit anywhere else. The only disputed info you have ever provided to these multiple RS is from Newsmax. How many RS need to report on this to overcome the burden of a twitter post you found that cites Newsmax?
- Al Jazeera now as well:
Former United States President Donald Trump has been shot in the ear during a campaign rally
- a KiharaNoukan (talk) 05:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'll accept it when there is unanimity among RS, which there should be if it's undoubtedly correct
- "The Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies have not yet publicly confirmed that Mr. Trump was shot in the ear, saying only that shots were fired and that the former president was “safe.”" soibangla (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- So every RS imaginable needs to say something because you dug around for contradicting info and came up with a twitter post referencing Newsmax, and saw that some other RS describe the same thing in a different manner, without actually contradicting. Do you have any RS claiming that Trump was not shot in the ear, besides a WP:NEWSMAX claim nested in WP:RSPTWITTER? Perhaps the reason that this is not mentioned with extreme specificity and consistency that you are requesting in this isolated demand for rigour is because nobody has taken the Newsmax claim seriously.
- Axios:
after former President Trump was shot in the ear at a rally in Pennsylvania.
- on top of Al Jazeera, USA Today, Reuters, CNN, KiharaNoukan (talk) 05:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- if it is indisputable he was shot, wouldn't RS unanimously and explicitly report he was shot? I say we should wait until they do. soibangla (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- that was not what CNN reported at the time of my edit[6] soibangla (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is absolutely no penalty to being careful. No one has any information about what hit his ear; CNN is just making a different decision about how to treat his statement. Please immediately self-revert under arbitration restriction
- There is no rush to say he was shot or anything. We know he was wounded, reliable sources agree on the fact he was wounded, and there is no need to specify where the wound came from/how it came about until the sources coalesce on a cause of the wound. I have no problem with sentences like "injured during a [shooting/assassination attempt/etc as agreed upon], but there is absolutely no rush to say he himself was shot while that is not confirmed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- it is certain he was injured
- it is not certain he was shot
- some RS report he was shot, others do not
- "The Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies have not yet publicly confirmed that Mr. Trump was shot in the ear"[7]
- we should slow down and err on the conservative soibangla (talk) 05:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. There is no need to report anything more than he was injured at this time. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Something nicked the upper part of Trump's ear (helix), clearly visible on the WaPo photograph. The video of Trump grabbing his ear and ducking at 8:09. Oddly, Trump says "Let me get my shoes" before he makes a fist and mouths "fight, fight, fight". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- It wasn't a glass shard from a shattered glass teleprompter since it did not shatter. See my message at the end of the talk section "Trump was struck by a bullet" we say. You can see the unshattered teleprompter in this C-SPAN video just after the shooting [8]. As far as I know, the false "glass shard from shattered teleprompter" theory was the only reason for thinking Trump's ear might not have been hit by a bullet. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Doesn’t matter. We aren’t in the business of second guessing reliable sources. There is no consensus in reliable sources that he was shot - while quite a few are reporting that he was shot (and he himself is claiming that), there are many others that are not reporting that - and are intentionally sticking to wording like “injured” or “wounded” or similar until the facts become clear.
- Do I personally think it’s likely that the damage was caused by a bullet grazing him or barely missing him but the pressure wave/heat harming him? Yes, that seems like the most likely based on my medical background. But my opinion (and yours) don’t matter - we follow the reliable sources, and until they have a consensus that he was shot (or the damage was caused by a bullet), we should not be reporting that. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's illogical to take the fact some sources don't opine on the subject as evidence against what other sources positively state. Besides, which sources at this point are holding out on calling it a gunshot wound? Riposte97 (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's illogical to take the fact some sources don't opine on the subject as evidence against what other sources positively state. Besides, which sources at this point are holding out on calling it a gunshot wound? Riposte97 (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- It wasn't a glass shard from a shattered glass teleprompter since it did not shatter. See my message at the end of the talk section "Trump was struck by a bullet" we say. You can see the unshattered teleprompter in this C-SPAN video just after the shooting [8]. As far as I know, the false "glass shard from shattered teleprompter" theory was the only reason for thinking Trump's ear might not have been hit by a bullet. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Something nicked the upper part of Trump's ear (helix), clearly visible on the WaPo photograph. The video of Trump grabbing his ear and ducking at 8:09. Oddly, Trump says "Let me get my shoes" before he makes a fist and mouths "fight, fight, fight". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. There is no need to report anything more than he was injured at this time. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Given the conflicting reports regarding whether Donald Trump was shot in the ear, it is crucial for Wikipedia editors to handle these sources with meticulous care. While CNN initially reported that Trump fell on stage, other sources like Reuters and USA Today have asserted he was shot. This disparity underscores the need for precision in how this incident is documented on Wikipedia. At this point, much is rather unclear about the matter except that emotions are raw.
To uphold Wikipedia's standards of verifiability and neutrality, editors should use careful language when citing these sources. Terms such as "fell", "injured" or "wounded" would be suitable until there is definitive confirmation from official sources such as the Secret Service or law enforcement agencies.
Some reliable sources have unequivocally stated that Trump was shot, while others have refrained from making definitive claims. This complexity necessitates a cautious approach to ensure that Wikipedia articles accurately reflect the current state of information, while respecting the ongoing nature of the investigation.
In summary, by acknowledging the initial reports a and choosing precise terminology such as "injured," Wikipedia editors can maintain accuracy and neutrality in documenting this significant event, while awaiting further developments and official statements. Much exists which remains unknown regarding the event. Please exercise caution and restraint until we can glean further information.Hu Nhu (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- with the current level of information available, and the totality of how reliable sources are reporting it, it is an egregious error for Wikipedia to conclusively state at this time that he was shot. we should say "injured" for the time being soibangla (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Redirect Trump to Donald Trump page.
As Trump is widely known for Donald Trump. It should be redirect to this page. Loveforwiki (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Its also known for other things, Oppose. Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it should. He is, very clearly, the primary target of anyone searching “Trump”, per WP:DPT. Cessaune [talk] 18:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's known for four dozen things. If you're saying remove the disambiguation page, oppose. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- “Trump” as a search term should redirect to Donald Trump. A hatnote at the top of this page should lead to the disambiguation page. It’s standard procedure. Cessaune [talk] 19:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:NWFCTM, and the move was repeatedly discussed and declined on the talk page of the Trump disambiguation page, according to Talk:Trump#Requested_move_28_December_2023. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- It’s not about what first comes to mind. It’s about what first comes up when you search. “Trump” as a search term overwhelmingly brings up Donald Trump. Per DPT I don’t see how “Trump” shouldn’t redirect to this page. Cessaune [talk] 19:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The section regarding Trump's 2024 campaign states that he was shot in his right earlobe. This is incorrect, it was the top of his ear. Carson6f (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- fixed --FMSky (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)