Talk:Donald Trump: Difference between revisions

Before requesting any edits to this protected article, please familiarise yourself with reliable sourcing requirements. Before posting an edit request on this talk page, please read the reliable sourcing and original research policies. These policies require that information in Wikipedia articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources, and disallow your personal views, observations, interpretations, analyses, or anecdotes from being used. Only content verified by subject experts and other reliable sources may be included, and uncited material may be removed without notice. If your complaint is about an assertion made in the article, check first to see if your proposed change is supported by reliable sources. If it is not, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted. Checking the archives for previous discussions may provide more information. Requests which do not provide citations from reliable sources, or rely on unreliable sources, may be subject to closure without any other response.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185Auto-archiving period: 14 days

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: This page is biased towards/against Trump because it mentions/doesn't mention x. Why won't you fix it? A1: Having a neutral point of view does not mean giving equal weight to all viewpoints. Rather, it refers to Wikipedia's effort to discuss topics and viewpoints in a roughly equal proportion to the degree that they are discussed in reliable sources, which in political articles is mostly mainstream media, although academic works are also sometimes used. For further information, please read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. Q2: A recent request for comment had X votes for support and Y votes for oppose. Why was it closed as no consensus when one position had more support than the other? A2: Wikipedia is built on consensus, which means that editors and contributors here debate the merits of adding, subtracting, or rearranging the information. Consensus is not a vote, rather it is a discussion among community members over how best to interpret and apply information within the bounds of our policy and guideline infrastructure. Often, but not always, the community finds itself unable to obtain consensus for changes or inclusions to the article. In other cases, the community may decide that consensus exists to add or modify material based on the strength of the arguments made by members citing relevant policy and guideline related material here. This can create confusion for new comers or those unfamiliar with Wikipedia's consensus building processes, especial since consensus can change. While all are welcome to participate in consensus building, keep in mind that the best positions for or against including material are based on policy and guideline pages, so it may be in your best interest to read up on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before diving into the debates.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Want to add new information about Donald Trump? Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example: Indictments against Donald Trump Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York ... or dozens of other places, as listed in {{Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!

Other talk page banners

Donald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Article milestones Date Process Result June 2, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed February 12, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed September 17, 2016 Good article nominee Not listed May 25, 2017 Good article nominee Not listed December 2, 2018 Good article nominee Not listed July 15, 2019 Good article nominee Not listed August 31, 2019 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 29, 2020 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Former good article nominee This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Template:WikiProject Donald Trump United States: Television / Presidential elections / Presidents / Government Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance). Conservatism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. New York City High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American / Political parties High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as High-importance). Business Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Television Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). 2010s Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 233 million views since December 2007. This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2023. This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 131 times. The weeks in which this happened: June 14 to 20, 2015 June 28 to July 4, 2015 July 19 to 25, 2015 July 26 to August 1, 2015 August 2 to 8, 2015 August 9 to 15, 2015 August 16 to 22, 2015 August 23 to 29, 2015 August 30 to September 5, 2015 September 6 to 12, 2015 September 13 to 19, 2015 September 20 to 26, 2015 September 27 to October 3, 2015 December 6 to 12, 2015 December 13 to 19, 2015 January 3 to 9, 2016 January 10 to 16, 2016 January 17 to 23, 2016 January 24 to 30, 2016 January 31 to February 6, 2016 February 7 to 13, 2016 February 14 to 20, 2016 February 21 to 27, 2016 February 28 to March 5, 2016 March 6 to 12, 2016 March 13 to 19, 2016 March 20 to 26, 2016 March 27 to April 2, 2016 April 3 to 9, 2016 April 10 to 16, 2016 April 17 to 23, 2016 April 24 to 30, 2016 May 1 to 7, 2016 May 8 to 14, 2016 May 15 to 21, 2016 May 22 to 28, 2016 May 29 to June 4, 2016 June 5 to 11, 2016 June 12 to 18, 2016 July 3 to 9, 2016 July 10 to 16, 2016 July 17 to 23, 2016 July 24 to 30, 2016 July 31 to August 6, 2016 August 21 to 27, 2016 August 28 to September 3, 2016 September 4 to 10, 2016 September 11 to 17, 2016 September 18 to 24, 2016 September 25 to October 1, 2016 October 2 to 8, 2016 October 9 to 15, 2016 October 16 to 22, 2016 October 23 to 29, 2016 October 30 to November 5, 2016 November 6 to 12, 2016 November 13 to 19, 2016 November 20 to 26, 2016 November 27 to December 3, 2016 December 4 to 10, 2016 December 11 to 17, 2016 December 18 to 24, 2016 January 1 to 7, 2017 January 8 to 14, 2017 January 15 to 21, 2017 January 22 to 28, 2017 January 29 to February 4, 2017 February 5 to 11, 2017 February 12 to 18, 2017 February 19 to 25, 2017 February 26 to March 4, 2017 March 5 to 11, 2017 March 12 to 18, 2017 March 19 to 25, 2017 March 26 to April 1, 2017 April 2 to 8, 2017 April 23 to 29, 2017 May 14 to 20, 2017 May 21 to 27, 2017 May 28 to June 3, 2017 June 11 to 17, 2017 June 25 to July 1, 2017 October 8 to 14, 2017 October 22 to 28, 2017 November 26 to December 2, 2017 January 14 to 20, 2018 June 10 to 16, 2018 September 30 to October 6, 2018 October 28 to November 3, 2018 November 4 to 10, 2018 November 11 to 17, 2018 November 18 to 24, 2018 November 25 to December 1, 2018 December 9 to 15, 2018 September 22 to 28, 2019 December 15 to 21, 2019 January 5 to 11, 2020 February 23 to 29, 2020 March 1 to 7, 2020 April 12 to 18, 2020 May 31 to June 6, 2020 June 7 to 13, 2020 June 14 to 20, 2020 June 21 to 27, 2020 June 28 to July 4, 2020 August 9 to 15, 2020 August 16 to 22, 2020 August 23 to 29, 2020 September 27 to October 3, 2020 October 4 to 10, 2020 October 11 to 17, 2020 October 18 to 24, 2020 October 25 to 31, 2020 November 1 to 7, 2020 November 8 to 14, 2020 November 15 to 21, 2020 November 22 to 28, 2020 November 29 to December 5, 2020 December 6 to 12, 2020 December 13 to 19, 2020 January 3 to 9, 2021 January 10 to 16, 2021 January 17 to 23, 2021 January 24 to 30, 2021 January 31 to February 6, 2021 July 10 to 16, 2022 June 11 to 17, 2023 May 26 to June 1, 2024 June 23 to 29, 2024 July 14 to 20, 2024 July 21 to 27, 2024 Health of Donald Trump was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 June 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Donald Trump. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Cuozzo, Steve (November 16, 2013). "Don't Trust Anything on Wikipedia". New York Post. Popper, Ben (July 22, 2015). "Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Wikipedia page". The Verge. Merrill, Jeremy (February 1, 2016). "On Wikipedia, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate". New York Times. Germ, Erik (May 28, 2016). "5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day". Cracked.com. Guo, Jeff (October 25, 2016). "Wikipedia is fixing one of the Internet's biggest flaws". The Washington Post. Alcantara, Chris (October 27, 2016). "The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates' Wikipedia pages". The Washington Post. Staff Writer (December 21, 2016). "Most-edited Wikipedia pages of 2016 revealed". BBC News. Gartenberg, Chaim (January 20, 2017). "Wikipedia editors can't decide if Trump is the president yet". The Verge. Wyrich, Andrew (June 5, 2017). "Someone is trying to get Trump's official portrait deleted from Wikipedia". The Daily Dot. Warren, Tom (22 November 2018). "Siri thinks Donald Trump is a penis". The Verge. Blumenthal, Eli (22 November 2018). "Wikipedia vandalizing causes Siri to show a lewd image when asked about Donald Trump". USA Today. Griffin, Andrew (23 November 2018). "Asking Siri for information about Donald Trump shows explicit image after Wikipedia edit". The Independent. Gander, Kashmira (23 November 2018). "Someone hacked Donald Trump's Wikipedia page, replaced photo with image of penis". Newsweek. Martin, Alan (26 November 2018). "The Trump penis Wikipedia war has kicked off again". The Inquirer. Brandom, Russell (December 3, 2018). "Wikipedia engages the 'nuclear option' after Trump penis hack". The Verge. Mak, Aaron (May 28, 2019). "Donald Trump's Wikipedia Entry Is a War Zone". Slate. Pasternack, Alex (March 7, 2020). "How Wikipedia's volunteers became the web's best weapon against misinformation". Fast Company. Flood, Brian (May 21, 2020). "Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics". Fox News. Evon, Dan (November 19, 2020). "Does Loser.com Redirect to Trump's Wikipedia Page?". Snopes. Williams, Zoe (October 23, 2023). "Why is Elon Musk attacking Wikipedia? Because its very existence offends him". The Guardian. Hays, Gabriel (May 31, 2024). "CNN host suggests Trump conviction not mentioned prominently enough on former president's Wikipedia page". Fox News. Harrison, Stephen (June 4, 2024). "The Most Heated Debate on Trump's Felony Conviction Is Happening on ... Wikipedia?". Slate.

Section sizes Section size for Donald Trump (90 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 9,193 9,193 Early life and education 2,824 2,824 Personal life 54 13,880 Family 1,326 1,326 Health 3,685 3,685 Views 8,815 8,815 Business career 149 36,462 Real estate 3,920 14,891 Manhattan and Chicago developments 5,738 5,738 Atlantic City casinos 3,612 3,612 Clubs 1,621 1,621 Side ventures 8,039 9,323 Trump University 1,284 1,284 Foundation 5,027 5,027 Legal affairs and bankruptcies 2,316 2,316 Wealth 4,756 4,756 Media career 4,593 4,593 Early political aspirations (1987–2014) 4,753 4,753 2016 presidential election 32 20,223 Campaign 11,801 20,191 Financial disclosures 3,669 3,669 Results 4,721 4,721 First presidency (2017–2021) 139 178,201 Early actions 2,423 2,423 Conflicts of interest 3,406 3,406 Domestic policy 21,326 21,326 Race relations 6,234 6,234 Pardons and commutations 2,574 2,574 Immigration 3,087 21,269 Travel ban 5,269 5,269 Family separation at the border 6,269 6,269 Trump wall and government shutdown 6,644 6,644 Foreign policy 2,893 36,016 Trade 2,529 2,529 Russia 4,222 4,222 East Asia 21 10,655 China, Hong Kong, Taiwan 4,915 4,915 North Korea 5,719 5,719 Middle East 23 15,717 Afghanistan 3,042 3,042 Israel 2,637 2,637 Saudi Arabia 2,229 2,229 Syria 3,798 3,798 Iran 3,988 3,988 Personnel 8,965 8,965 Judiciary 4,175 4,175 COVID-19 pandemic 291 31,782 Initial response 7,804 7,804 White House Coronavirus Task Force 5,282 5,282 World Health Organization 2,677 2,677 Pressure to abandon pandemic mitigation measures 7,969 7,969 Political pressure on health agencies 2,690 2,690 Outbreak at the White House 2,666 2,666 Effects on the 2020 presidential campaign 2,403 2,403 Investigations 1,079 26,087 Financial 3,111 3,111 Russian election interference 6,492 6,492 FBI Crossfire Hurricane and 2017 counterintelligence investigations 2,573 2,573 Mueller investigation 12,832 12,832 First impeachment 10,407 10,407 Second impeachment 3,398 3,398 2020 presidential election 34 24,063 Defeat to Biden 8,432 17,199 Rejection of results 8,767 8,767 January 6 Capitol attack 6,830 6,830 Inter-presidency (2021–present) 5,016 37,306 Business activities 2,382 2,382 Investigations, criminal indictments and convictions, civil lawsuits 1,150 29,908 FBI investigations 5,781 5,781 Criminal referral by the House January 6 Committee 693 693 State criminal indictments 3,176 3,176 Federal criminal indictments 5,743 5,743 Criminal conviction in the 2016 campaign fraud case 7,700 7,700 Civil judgments 5,665 5,665 2024 presidential election 15,712 15,712 Assessments 18 6,637 Public image 4,251 4,251 Scholarly 2,368 2,368 Political practice and rhetoric 5,615 34,111 Link to hate crimes 3,242 3,242 Truthfulness 10,484 10,484 Conspiracy theories 3,490 3,490 Social media 5,810 5,810 Relationship with the press 5,470 5,470 Notes 136 136 References 30 30 Works cited 18 8,395 Books 2,906 2,906 Journals 5,471 5,471 External links 5,635 5,635 Total 402,154 402,154

hello sorry for editin on top of page i am editing on playstation vita bht i was wondering kf we can link the thing in the lede about him redirecting tbe budgst to build the mexican wall sith the articke about the trump wall (blue) text link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.189.180 (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

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

• B. --Thedarkknightli (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm slightly conflicted; both have their benefits. Mar-a-Lago is specific (good) and has an article on his residence (good), but that plus "Palm Beach, Florida" is long (undesirable). Mar-a-Lago alone doesn't indicate where in the country he lives (undesirable); Palm Beach, Florida does that, but misses the specific Mar-a-Lago name and specificity. A? But with a line break? On the other hand entirely, Template:Infobox officeholder says neither are appropriate, though: Where this person lives. Only use for residences that come with the office. NOT for towns, cities, states, countries, etc. Obama does not use this parameter, and Biden has the White House. In keeping with consistency and documentation, it should be removed. But I'm on the side of including it because it can be useful for a wide array of biographies, not just here. SWinxy (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• A – we have an article on Mar-a-Lago, which is enough for me. Template:Infobox officeholder is really weird about this, since Trump is a one-time politician. We aren't going to add another infobox just to include his place of residence, and I think it's important info. Cessaune [talk] 22:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• A per Cessaune R. G. Checkers ^talk 01:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• A: sums up where he lives.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• A: I'd rule out B entirely since that gives no mention of his (well known) residence. C is more specific but no immediate information on where Mar-a-Lago is. So I'm teetering towards keeping status quo. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 00:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• A works.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• A Important to mention the specific residence (Mar-A-Lago) given its considerable coverage.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• C as per the template docs which states "Only use for residences that come with the office. NOT for towns, cities, states, countries, etc." Lordseriouspig 03:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• B over C. Not A. Saying "Mar-a-Lago, Palm Beach" seems a little redundant. We wouldn't say something like "the president lives in the White House, Washington DC", b/c everyone knows where the White House actually is. NickCT (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove field per template doc: "Only use for residences that come with the office." This guidance enjoys over four months of de facto consensus, with no challenge since it was added—at a highly visible template. Template usage guidance exists for one purpose: to keep us all on the same page, all moving in a common direction. Otherwise we might as well throw it away and save lots of time. Clearly, Mar-a-Lago did not come with the office, as evident in the fact that Joe Biden does not live there. And Trump is not in office anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove Agree with Mandruss. If the guideline says it does not belong, it should be removed. Also, doesn't he live in Trump Tower? TFD (talk) 03:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  He changed his primary residence, i.e., where he's registered to vote, pay his personal income tax, etc., from Trump Tower to Mar-a-Lago in 2019. It's unclear how often he stays at his Trump Tower penthouse; during the summer months he mostly lives at his private quarters at his golf club in Bedminster, NJ. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove parameter per Template:Infobox_person, which is used to summarize information about a particular person and doesn’t include the residence parameter, and Template:Infobox_officeholder#Personal_data, which says to Only use [the residence parameter] for residences that come with the office. NOT for towns, cities, states, countries, etc. The article mentions Mar-a-Lago twice, in the "Clubs" subsection of Real estate, with link to Mar-a-Lago, and in the Post-presidency (2021–present) section. Trump is not an officeholder anymore. If he’s elected to the presidency, we will add his official White House residence. If he loses the election, "infobox person" will continue to apply. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Mar-a-Lago, BTW, isn't zoned as a residence, it's a resort where hotel guests are allowed to stay a maximum of 21 days per year and no longer than seven days at a time. Trump is only allowed to live there because his lawyer argued that he is an employee of the club. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

You could make an addition to the end of,

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

to change to,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And this current lead text:

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

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

Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wretchskull (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

TFD (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have clarified the language in #25.[5] I've long believed the language was confusing, failing to clearly distinguish between the archived sources and the archive parameters, and this thread finally provided me the motivation to fix it. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

A user removed that Israeli officials lobbied Trump into recognizing "Israeli sovereignty" over the Golan Heights. [6]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I also think it's an unimportant detail. Mary Anne McLeod Trump was a naturalized citizen by the time Trump was born. Two of Trump's wives (Ivana and Melania), however, weren't when he married them. Ivana was an Austrian citizen through her sham marriage to an Austrian and living in Canada with her Czech boyfriend when she met Trump on a modeling job in New York. We can only speculate how Melania qualified for the EB1 "Einstein visa". After she became a citizen, she legally sponsored her parents (and, I believe, her sister, as well) to obtain green cards, the "chain migration" Trump wants to eliminate (WaPo, NYT). After five years of residency the Knavses were then able to apply for citizenship and became naturalized citizens in August 2018. While their application was being processed, Trump tweeted in November 2017 that "CHAIN MIGRATION must end now! Some people come in, and they bring their whole family with them, who can be truly evil" (NYT cite). Hypocrisy — sure, like pornography I know it when I see it, but the coverage is along the lines of the WaPo cite: "Critics said the Knavses' ability to secure green cards and citizenship smacks of hypocrisy, given the president's hard-line immigration stance." Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yknow, I think if we mention anything about his family and immigration, this content outlined by ST3C2 would likely be WP:DUE. It's been mentioned in a lot of contexts in articles about Trump and immigration. WaPo NYT (as mentioned above) but also Vox Salon Sydney Morning Herald SCMP Orlando Sentinel NPR ABC Denver Post and more.

It maybe deserves one or two sentences in the section about family? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has suffered the removal of much significant content on the premise that the page is "too long". Unless Trump is spotted golfing in his ancestral kilt or some other event receives widespread ongoing RS discussion, I would rely on our sub-articles to cover his blood lines. SPECIFICO talk 18:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this discussion is about whether to include the two word (one compound word?) adjective "Scottish-born". Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2 words are not relevant to Trump's biography. Moreover, you have freely admitted above ("as Trump has been vocal about the immigrant ancestry of political opponents") that you want this addition as an exercise in point-making and not as an honest editing suggestion. That sort of thing begins to build the groundwork for topic or page-bans, so, take some advice and quit while you're behind. Zaathras (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit harsh, no? The discussion — OK, moi, mostly — veered into "other stuff that is more hypocritical" territory. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His ancestral tartan appears to be black on black? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I don't care much about that poorly-written WP:LEAD quote. The number of paragraph breaks is not the issue, here or anywhere. Let's stop counting paragraphs and start counting words. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuant to earlier discussion, seeking consensus for:

The article is not changed during discussion merely because the discussion is perceived to be leaning in one direction.

• Support as proposer. I'm always annoyed when I see an article changed because a discussion is leaning in one direction (in one editor's subjective opinion, usually an editor who supports said change). What, are we to change the article back when the discussion leans in the other direction? Is this tennis? How is that constructive? This is inconsistent with any concept of orderly process. And what's the hurry? There is no deadline. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's site-wide good practice in many situations, but this would be the sort of "local consensus" that cannot supplant site-wide consensus -- in this case about PAG's. So what's the point? Why not propose it at Village Pump or similar. SPECIFICO talk 19:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Where is said site-wide consensus or PAG? Why not propose it at Village Pump or similar. Because I don't seek to change the world. Improvements can begin small and grow organically (sort of like consensus lists, for example). ―Mandruss ☎ 19:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds a little Hippie. Maybe propose it at Whole Earth Catalog SPECIFICO talk 19:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Very constructive. (And hippies did seek to change the world, so it doesn't even make sense.) ―Mandruss ☎ 19:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:EDITCON, both of which are sections of the same policy. Jurisdiction concerns aside, I think this would be unnecessary instruction creep, particularly for an article already under CTOP restriction. VQuakr (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I see no material difference between this and current consensus item 43. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Unlike this proposal, item 43 is a repetition of content already in our PAGs. It strikes me as harmlessly unnecessary (I would oppose adding it to the list per instruction creep were the conversation being had now), but it isn't worth the electrons to discuss removing it today. VQuakr (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And yet, we had recurring disputes around the issue until #43 was passed. Now we don't. I don't call that harmlessly unnecessary; I call it useful per empirical evidence. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Some editors do this. Other editors don't like it. Yet others dgaf. Far from a global consensus, that's "no consensus" at best. So your policy does not apply here. Again, where is the community consensus that an article can be edited based on the perception that a discussion is leaning? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This feels a little WP:CREEPY to me.
  Is there a technical distinction between a generic bold-refine and this? Would the difference be fully contained in the content of the edit summary? Cessaune [talk] 20:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I honestly don't see the problem there. In my experience, the edit summary is quite clear that it's because the discussion is leaning, no other reason. There is no refining to be seen in the edit; it's all about process, not content. It essentially says, quite fallaciously: "This is how it's going to turn out anyway, so we might as well go ahead and change the article." ―Mandruss ☎ 21:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no issue with a CREEP argument. Editors may decide that it's not enough of a problem to justify a new consensus item. I disagree (consensus items are cheap in my view), but, if so, so be it. But that's the only legitimate and logical Oppose argument I see here, so far. (I'm all too aware that arguments don't need to be legitimate or logical to count in an outcome.) ―Mandruss ☎ 21:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My Dear, the point is you will advocate bravely for this new mode, possibly raising your blood pressure etc. Then after it's adopted, there comes some entitled newb months hence who resents being restricted and blows up this talk page yet again. 'S Not worthit, IMO. SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Experience clearly contradicts that. This talk page is rarely blown up in opposition to a local consensus. There are objections, but they are quashed in short order. We don't revisit a consensus merely because somebody shows up who disagrees with it. Instead, we have concrete criteria for revisitation, and they have worked remarkably well (uncodified criteria, unfortunately, and maybe that will be remedied on some bright day in the future). My blood pressure is fine, actually close to the low end of normal range, but thanks for your concern. My dear. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with unnecessary instruction creep. It won't keep less experienced users from committing the faux pas, it won't deter the plain ornery, and it takes just as long to write a revert editsum referring to consensus #n as one referring to an ongoing discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• What I think should be changed: Remove "Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history." from the end of the 5th opening text paragraph.
• Why it should be changed: The text is strongly worded, yet is poorly sourced (instead it links to another article, where *some* scholars and historians have expressed this opinion). Referencing "scholars and historians" in general, is a weasel word and falls below the editorial standards of Wikipedia. There are likewise a number of scholars and academics who hold more favourable views of the former President, which this statement downplays.
• References supporting the possible change: Most of the criticisms raised do not require references (i.e. pointing out that the statement is arbitrary and relies on weasel words). Here is an article by the LA Times which discusses scholars and academics who hold more favourable views of Donald Trump, as well as a peer-reviewed academic paper on the matter.

Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't just "some" scholars and historians ranking him very low in one survey, this is multiple, high-profile groups that have consistently ranked him at or near the bottom of the list. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit requests are for uncontroversial changes: changes that no editor could reasonably object to, changes that do not require discussion. This hardly qualifies; therefore I'm converting it to a discussion. In the future, please use the "New section" link at the top of this page unless you're pointing out typos, obvious grammatical errors, broken links, clear violations of consensus, etc. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See current consensus item 54 and the RfC discussion linked there. Do you have any new argument? We typically don't revisit a consensus unless there is significant new argument or the external situation has changed significantly. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have my old one, which was rejected then. Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked it up; your old argument was We are not even 12 months from his defeat... we're now closer to 4 years after his defeat than 3, so this is one argument that has weakened over the years. Has there been a shift in the historical assessment regarding the subject's quality as president in the intervening time? That would be a potentially strong argument for a new RfC. VQuakr (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right; hence unless [...] the external situation has changed significantly. (If that principle were codified in a consensus, we could close this now, potentially avoiding significant distraction, and the OP could open a new discussion in the unlikely event they have significant new argument. The concept of "settled issue" is well accepted here, and for good reason.) ―Mandruss ☎ 18:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The text is not poorly sourced. It summarizes the article body, which in the section Scholarly assessment and public approval surveys contains the requisite sourcing. The LA times link is to an article from election day, 2016. It therefore predates every action by Trump as president and is not relevant to a summary of how his legacy is viewed. The Theory and Society article clearly casts academic supporters of Trump as a tiny minority. It also is not new: that article existed in 2021 when the previous RfC was held, and therefore would be unlikely to upset the consensus that resulted from that discussion. VQuakr (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of our cites is C-SPAN's "Presidential Historians Survey 2021". Since Biden is retiring at the end of his term, C-SPAN will presumably conduct another survey next year. We'll see how Trump will be ranked then. "Absence makes the heart grow fonder" — well, Trump hasn't been absent at all, so, pity points for getting shot at? (/not a forum) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss, the shadow is caused by - what else - his raised fist. I uploaded a larger extract (File:Donald Trump speaking at Turning Point Action's Believers Summit, July 26, 2024, West Palm Beach.jpg) from the (File:Donald_Trump_(53911318596).jpg original image) but, judging by a couple of previous attempts to upload images, I don't know whether it will pass muster. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss, typo in the template, so repeating your name. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the purpose of this thread? Knowing the cause of the weird shadow effect doesn't make it more acceptable. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody wants to add a recent picture of Trump they can use the second extracted one. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They can try. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

If we look more specifically at the evidence,

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

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

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]