Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 175

Archive 170

←

Archive 173

Archive 174

Archive 175

Archive 176

Archive 177

→

Archive 180

Overly Bias

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

---

It’s funny to see so much hate for Trump while I read Kamala’s Wikipedia “file” only having galore and never mentioning of her past of living in Canada, where there is picture evidence of her being there. Crazy and distrustful when I used to use this website to help my essays. Never again, hire better people 2600:6C4E:AF0:1A70:79D7:440C:4BF1:D5A8 (talk) 11:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Our article on Kamala Harris does, in fact, mention her living in Canada. In 1976, she accepted a research position at the McGill University School of Medicine, and moved with her daughters to Montreal, Quebec.

We can't "hire" better people because everyone here is a volunteer.

And why is living in Canada, a bad thing, I wonder? Whatever. It's mentioned at Harris' article. Cremastra (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2024

Please change "On January 6, 2021, he urged his supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol, which many of them attacked." to "On January 6,2021, in his speech he said "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." Which lead to the attack on the Capitol. Many consider this statement to have incited an insurrection. While Trump and his supporters do not think that he was responsible for the attack on the Capitol." Reese3521 (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Trump didn't urge his supporters to march to the Capitol. He said he knew they would and wanted them to be peaceful and patriotic. An argument can be made as to Trump having a feeling that his supporters were gonna do that but on the other side you can say that by making that statement he was hoping for his supporters to attack the Capitol. The way it's written now isn't factual Reese3521 (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

References

I disagree. That's one sentence from a long speech. The short text in our lead is based on Donald_Trump#January_6_Capitol_attack, and that section is based on several reliable sources, among them this one (archived version you can read without a subscription) with "some notable excerpts from Mr. Trump’s remarks, with analysis". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

fair enough, should've doven further into the page. Is it possible to at least add the quote I cited to the Donald_Trump#January_6_Capitol_attack

People defending trump cite that quote a lot making it pretty relevant. If you don't think that'll work that's OK I just figured the quote is relevant enough to be cited. 2600:1009:B128:C111:8071:A337:5578:940D (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a misuse of the edit request facility; please don't do it again. Second sentence at WP:EDITREQ: "Requests should be accompanied by a clear and specific description of the requested change, and consensus should be obtained before requesting changes that are likely to be controversial." It doesn't say edit requests are an acceptable way to seek consensus, and no reading of the guidance could be taken to imply that. Use things as they are designed and meant to be used.

(If there is to be any hope of improvement, I think editors need to stop legitimizing misuse by responding to the substance, as was done above. Edit request is NOT an alternative way to open a discussion; rather, edit requests are for things that don't need discussion.)

(I've long believed that edit requests have little utility or value at articles like this one. 1. Very little is uncontroversial and doesn't need discussion. 2. There are always extended-confirmed editors around, so there is no need to add the talk page to a maintenance category (Category:Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected edit requests) to summon such an editor. At such articles, cost exceeds benefit. At WP:VPI, I recently proposed the ability to turn off the edit request facility at individual articles. I got no support, so we're stuck with the status quo.) ―Mandruss ☎ 03:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Mea culpa, I'll ignore them from now on. I didn't know about the EDITREQ information page, and I'm pretty sure Reese didn't either. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Sufficient information is presented in the edit request path, all one needs is to read at least some of it. To see this, you can log out and begin the edit request path. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The lead needs to be updated

Need to add author. His new book "Save America" came out recently.

The lead "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." should be updated with author.

204.197.177.42 (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

There are a bunch of books labeled "by Trump"; but written by ghost writers. This one is a picture book that is more a campaign ad. See: [1] O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Was that link supposed to go to a source? Looks like just a google search saying Trump wrote the thing. PackMecEng (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, fixed. Although occurs to me it is behind the NYTimes paywall. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, oof yeah a $500 coffee table book. Maybe better at Bibliography of Donald Trump. PackMecEng (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Why I’m not donating to help you.

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

---

The fact that you allow people with various agendas to alter articles about people, places and incidents untruthfully, is why I won’t donate to your organization. if you’re gonna stand for something. Grow some balls and do it. At least you’ll be respected for your honesty 170.64.46.165 (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Page has a clear left-leaning bias.

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

---

Not constructive, and WP:NOTFORUM

"Reacted slowly to the Pandemic" Read this intro and ask yourself whether this description, and the selective facts chosen, are objective and neutral: Trump received a Bachelor of Science degree in economics from the University of Pennsylvania in 1968. His father made him president of the family real estate business in 1971. Trump renamed it the Trump Organization and reoriented the company toward building and renovating skyscrapers, hotels, casinos, and golf courses. After a series of business failures in the late 1990s, he launched side ventures, mostly licensing the Trump name. From 2004 to 2015, he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice. He and his businesses have been plaintiffs or defendants in more than 4,000 legal actions, including six business bankruptcies. Trump won the 2016 presidential election as the Republican Party nominee against Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton while losing the popular vote.[a] The Mueller special counsel investigation determined that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to favor Trump. During the campaign, his political positions were described as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. His election and policies sparked numerous protests. He was the only U.S. president without prior military or government experience. Trump promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged, racist, and misogynistic. As president, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, diverted military funding toward building a wall on the U.S.–Mexico border, and implemented a family separation policy. He rolled back more than 100 environmental policies and regulations. He signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which cut taxes and eliminated the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Act. He appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court. He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, used political pressure to interfere with testing efforts, and spread misinformation about unproven treatments. Trump initiated a trade war with China and withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. He met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times but made no progress on denuclearization. Trump is the only U.S. president to have been impeached twice, in 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress after he pressured Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, and in 2021 for incitement of insurrection. The Senate acquitted him in both cases. Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden but refused to concede. He falsely claimed widespread electoral fraud and attempted to overturn the results. On January 6, 2021, he urged his supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol, which many of them attacked. Trump supported and took credit for the repeal of Roe v. Wade. Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freespeech2024 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC) Copying the article into the talk page without any context or specific policy points is just preaching to the choir and doesn't have the impact you seem to think it does. DN (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2024

The following sub-headings under Political Career->Presidential Campaigns(2000-2016) must be formatted in bold: "Campaign rhetoric and political positions" "Financial disclosures" "Election to the presidency" RockRida317 (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Why? Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

They receive the proper bolding their heading levels provide. Why should they receive more bolding? Is there some part of our guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Boldface that would require this? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 12:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Hail fellow well met

Donald Trump "hail and hearty and well met" "Pennsylvania" rally

Hail fellow well met

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-rally-pennsylvania-shakespeare-crowd-sizes-churchill-b2617949.html

https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-phrase-hale-and-hearty-appear-in-shakespeares-works/1007699

69.181.17.113 (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

So? Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Add to Category:American politicians convicted of crimes??

Should he be added to Category:American politicians convicted of crimes? It is my pleasure (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree it should be added John Bois (talk) 02:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Cessaune [talk] 06:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

He's a politician and a convicted felon. I added the category. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 08:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

"He seeks to be the 47th" in first sentence of lead

Anything added diff and aspires to be the 47th to the lead, I reverted per MOS:FIRST + Trump's current campaign mentioned in 5th paragraph, Anything reinserted here and here the slightly edited text He seeks to be the 47th. Violation of 24-hour BRD? Or plausible deniability? MOS:OPEN doesn't say anything about "one-sentence paragraphs being disfavored". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it's excessive for the first paragraph; the mention later on in the lead is adequate.

Probably a violation of the arbitration rule, but I wouldn't take it any further unless it's re-added. — Czello ^(music) 10:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Spacetime’s edit summary was “MOS:FIRST ‘Do not overload’. His current run is mentioned in the last paragraph. (Aspire? Not a lot of soaring in that campaign).” So I obligingly took it out of the first sentence, and changed the word “aspire”, and now for obediently addressing his objections in good faith I get pilloried. This kind of nonsense is all too common at this article, please stop. And you must know that a major-party nominee’s ongoing candidacy for POTUS has always been mentioned in the opening paragraph, and then further detailed later in the lead. Always. Except here of course. Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

a major-party nominee’s ongoing candidacy for POTUS has always been mentioned in the opening paragraph is rather disingenuous, as Trump is first ex-president in nearly a century to run again after leaving the Office. For most challengers, e.g. Mitt Romney in 2012, Bob Dole in 1996, being the current candidate would be the most noteworthy aspect of the biography. For a person who has already been president and is known for numerous controversies and allegedly attempting to overthrow the government, being the current nominee does kinda sit a few rungs down the notability ladder. Zaathras (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Alkazar9999 has added the same, and I think their version has much better wording. But I have no opinion either way. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I just now saw this for the first time, so I'm not sure what was added or when and to be quite honest I can't really be arsed to try to figure it out. But I don't see the current first paragraph as being overloaded as it stands at the time I'm making this comment: 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. He is the Republican Party's nominee for president in the 2024 presidential election. I agree with others that "aspires" is borderline WP:PUFFERY and that it's more informative to put the election (2024) rather than the number of president that he would be if he is re-elected. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the second line in that first paragraph was recently added. And even then, I'd say that's a short first paragraph. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Trump is running for the third time. The first nomination was noteworthy for the first paragraph. A sentence saying that the GOP nominated Trump for a third time, despite his having resoundingly lost the popular vote twice and, as the sitting president, also the last election, that might be noteworthy for the first paragraph. Otherwise, another nomination is just part of the chronology. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 07:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, he's not running for the third time. It's his fourth time. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Yep. I forgot about that one: Crucially, Trump had timed his political stops to coincide with Robbins’ seminars, so that he was "making a lot of money" on those campaign stops. Things don't seem to have changed all that much (sneakers and watches). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

"Biden's predecessor" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Biden's predecessor has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 28 § Biden's predecessor until a consensus is reached. Cremastra (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Unproven attacks

This article puts a lengthy negative spin on unproven events and accusations 71.175.15.234 (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Such as? Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2024

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 October 2024

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2024

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 October 2024

Change to photograph, which is from 2017 and outdated. 96.236.43.205 (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

No. For presidents the Wikipedia generally keeps to the official White House portrait, regardless of subject age. Zaathras (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion for "Rigged election" etc. graphic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to include the graph. The primary issue under discussion was whether the graph displays the information more clearly and helpfully than text. There was some disagreement here, but editors overall leaned toward the graph providing an understanding or perspective of the subject that cannot be provided by text alone. The second issue is whether this type of coverage of sowing doubt is sufficiently due. Several editors expressed support for this idea. The main opposition to this was that weight cannot be determined until after the election, but this did not see much support.

Other issues were raised by small numbers of editors, including but not limited to the prominence in the article, whether similar measurements are used in other sources, whether coverage in a child article is sufficient, whether data for more recent months is necessary for inclusion, and whether its inclusion is non-neutral, but none of these arguments gained momentum. Those who opposed its inclusion on the basis of aesthetics or presentation may consider offering an alternative design that conveys the same information.

As a final note, the bludgeoning proved unhelpful, and it likely crossed the line into CTOP-sanctionable conduct. I encourage editors to read WP:PEPPER and to seek the assistance of an uninvolved administrator if bludgeoning makes a discussion difficult to parse in the future. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Suggested version including text and graph

2024 presidential campaign section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Synopsis

Synopsis:

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

Attn: Mandruss DN SPECIFICO John Bois Zaathras QuicoleJR GoodDay Space4Time3Continuum2x

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC re including chart quantifying increase in election denial rhetoric

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  That's nice, but, still an opinion. Zaathras (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Recap: By my numeric count after a month, there are 11 include and 8 exclude !votes, plus one implied-include (Berchanhimez), a conditional exclude unrelated to the graphic itself (Yovt), and a distributed-discussion "maybe a graph"-if-text-is-improved (Specifico). More important is the reasoning: Trump's historic big lie doesn't merely repeat his "penchant for untruthiness" that's in the article already; the big lie undermines the electoral foundation of democracy itself.^abc Contrary to those 'exclude' !voters who urge using only text: the shocking quantitative growth over election cycles of this historic big lie cannot be adequately portrayed in any reasonable amount of prose, especially if it is buried in a 15,800-word article; a picture is worth a thousand words. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

A clearly biased recap, especially by one who has bludgeoned the discussion to the point of obliteration, is of no use to to anyone. Esp. the eventual closer. Zaathras (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions on prose might sway votes more effectively. DN (talk) 04:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

That would be a goalpost-mover. The RfC is is a yes/no on a graph, not a) this graph, b) this text. Zaathras (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Factually, prose has already been added, though by necessity it doesn't quantify the dramatic increase in use of the historic big lie. We can first add the graphic, then improve the prose if desired, per normal editing. The graphic reduces the amount of prose needed in this already-15,800-word article.^{(PDF=94 pages long)} —RCraig09 (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Include appears to have sigcov and is an informative graphic. VQuakr (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The fact comes from the following source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Website

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

---

Someone please add his official website to his infobox. It's donaldjtrump.com NicoConservative (talk) 03:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

??? It's in the infobox. Click "Campaign website". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh I see it now, I missed it before. NicoConservative (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Add where he worked at mcdonalds

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

---

it just happened Tall Tall Mountain (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Almost definitely not WP:DUE enough for inclusion in an already large article. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 13:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it did not. It was a staged publicity event. Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

It was mostly a news conference conducted through the drive-through window at a McDonald's owned by a franchisee who opposes raising the minimum wage and paying overtime. Quoting the Washington Post article: The restaurant was closed to the public during Trump’s visit, and the motorists whom Trump served were screened by the U.S. Secret Service and positioned before his arrival. No one ordered food. Instead, the attendees received whatever Trump gave them. (He handed out fries, saying "it's on me".) Trump was at the fry station for about five minutes and spent about 15 minutes at the drive-through window, much of it taking questions from reporters. Publicity stunt, i.e., campaign trivia. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

All campaigns, have publicity stunts. This would be better suited for the 2024 United States presidential election and Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign pages. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure it would be due coverage there even, but it certainly is not here. VQuakr (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Not DUE R. G. Checkers ^talk 16:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

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

The Amount Of Bias In This Article Is Disgusting Compared To The Kamala Harris Or Any Other Article Out There

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

---

The ENTIRE article just talks about how unbelievably bad he is, despite barely circling around his accomplishments, and even when he does accomplishments it's always followed up by something negative, yet Wikipedia claims to be "Centrist", that's the biggest lie I've ever heard, this website is one of the most far-left of them all, not to mention it's meant to be "credible", also of course the braindead mods say "being neutral doesn't mean giving weight to all sides", huh? That's literally how being neutral works! VerseWiki (talk) 01:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Where does Wikipedia claim to be "centrist"? DN (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

"circling around his accomplishments" What accomplishments? Mishandling pandemics and increasing the budget deficit? Dimadick (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV to see what "neutral" really means. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. I'd also suggest reading WP:DUE and WP:NPOV for further clarification. Cessaune [talk] 01:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

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

use of "claim"

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

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

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

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

Trump

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

---

This is nothing more than a hit piece. 2601:2C4:4300:D560:2CE6:6D90:CE3:79CC (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Donald Trump/FAQ. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. Wikipedia follows WP:RS whether you like them or not. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true for the most part. And it's well sourced with hit pieces. We seem to have entered the dark ages of journalism. Bob K31416 (talk) 05:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC) Are we blaming journalism in this scenario? DN (talk) 05:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC) They can only report what he says and does, to illustrate Did you see what I did there? Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC) It's not the journalists's fault that Trump is a dumpster fire of bad ideas and worse behavior. No one forced him to commit sexual assault. Or massive fraud. Or a treasonous revolt. No one made him insult women, minorities, immigrants, the military ... If the press about Trump is mostly bad, he has only himself to blame for doing mostly bad things. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC) WP:NOTFORUM Anotherperson123 (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

What is, IP? GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Age factor, Trump-to-Vance policy transition

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

---

If Donald Trump will be elected again, his policy will damage the reputation and weaken America's influence globally as it happed during his first presidency: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/14/trump-biden-foreign-policy-alliances/ This is part of the problem. However, this is not the only issue. Trump is 78 years old. He is too old for presidency. Consequently, we can predict that with his cognitive decline that is already visible: https://as.cornell.edu/news/trumps-abrupt-decision-play-dj-sign-accelerating-cognitive-decline-says-cornell-expert his role in the cabinet will be fully controlled by 39 years old James David Vance. Therefore, the voters should keep in mind that they will actually vote for James David Vance's policy rather than for Donald Trump's policy. Political Projection (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

This is not how Wikipedia articles are developed. See WP:NOTFORUM. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Donald Trump works at mcdonalds!

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

---

Once for Donald trumps 2024 campain he worked at mcdonalds!Cool. 62.7.84.101 (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Please read wp:undue, this was not in fact employment, it was a publicity stunt. Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Fascistic behaviour is dominant

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

---

Why is the broadly proven and reported fact that Trump is behaving in a fascistic manner not noted in the introduction of the article? Even if this behaviour is seen as 'normal' by some audiences an encylopedia should name it. Not naming it is a falsely understood pseudo-neutrality which is dangerous at the dawn of fascism in a country. --Jensbest (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

There's already an ongoing discussion on this talkpage, about that topic. GoodDay (talk) 13:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, didn't see that. Read it and I am confused. The USA is at the possible dawn of fascism and the discussion treats that point as merely nice-to-have added in the lead. Well, as a German who knows how fascism unfolded in the history of my own country in the middle of society in broad daylight I'm more than worried that the above discussion obviously doesn't get the urgency and danger of that topic. Well, everyone is digging their own grave. Good luck, --Jensbest (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

"The USA is at the possible dawn of fascism"? Let's not jump to conclusions. Anyways best to avoid WP:NOTFORUM discussions. GoodDay (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure, no problem, if you try hard you can ignore fascism until it knocks on your door or switch off your server. --Jensbest (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

We already say "Trump used harsher, more dehumanizing anti-immigrant rhetoric than during his presidency.[710][711][712][713] His embrace of far-right extremism[714][715] and harsher rhetoric against his political enemies have been described by historians and scholars as populist, authoritarian, fascist,[b] and unlike anything a political candidate has ever said in American history.[716][709][724]". Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note that Jensbest opened this discussion in violation of a community-imposed topic-ban from Donald Trump. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Mention his nickname "The Donald" in the lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cognitive decline concerns

Numerous commentators have for some time alleged that Trump is suffering from either age-related or disease-related cognitive decline, to the point where we have a whole article on it: Age and health concerns about Donald Trump. Multiple WP:RS have speculated that he is in the early to mid stages of dementia, and there is substantial evidence that his behavior has changed in recent years, with more and more peculiar episodes and changes in language production (for example, tangentiality, all-or-nothing thinking and the production of word salad). Recent examples from mainstream WP:RS across the political spectrum: [3], [4], [5], [6].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Age and health concerns

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

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

• Current consensus item 39 is to omit it.Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021). So unless there is a formal diagnosis or MEDRS level source we are not supposed to even discuss it. PackMecEng (talk) 11:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weird propaganda y’all got here :)

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

---

i love how clearly biased this page is. SO many sources are from left leaning news outlets (why are you using unreliable “sources” known to twist the truth)?? You add CNN and Washington Post as credible sources but not FOX news?… Really gross. Spend your time posting on Reddit please, not on a supposedly neutral platform on Wikipedia. 2600:1004:B022:94DE:A9EE:B84F:AA8B:E3E8 (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Supposedly Neutral

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

---

Ridiculous how biased this page is, whomever wrote this should be ashamed of themselves for pretending to be a neutral writer. Please do some research before you post and please do it from reliable non-biased sources. Clk7160 (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Please read our policies, and actually point out where we are wrong. Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Biased and mostly devoid of facts

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

---

Utterly biased by omission of background facts 70.177.134.75 (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Biased hit piece

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

---

The lead-in section of this article is nothing short of a propagandistic hit piece. There is no objectivity whatsoever. What a shameful, disgusting display of lack of scholarly integrity. Citing a source does not mean the source is accurate, either. Y'all need to find some morals and ethics and practice them, instead of engaging in what is arguably libel. 2001:579:D080:390:40B8:23E9:33BD:6841 (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2024

change 2017 to 2021 under his presidency to 2016-2020. 2601:147:4501:D3C0:B893:AE6C:7DD5:A183 (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

He was not sworn in until 2017 and Joe Biden was not sworn in until 2021. ✶Quxyz✶ 00:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: He was not president in 2016. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 October 2024

Change the 2024 election to contain factual information, instead of hoaxes that are biased and have sources such as the Guardian (like the blood-bath claim or the support of far-right extremism and fascist). Instead, the wiki page should hold only factual like his policies and how he differs from Kamala, his campaigning (Joe Rogan interview, New York rally, Nevada rally...), the two assassination attempts... 212.230.150.153 (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Not done... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a campaign platform. Also, edit request must follow that format of "change X to Y"... - Adolphus79 (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Update to include "convicted felon"

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

---

The lede should state that he is a businessman, yada, yada, and convicted felon. Reference 1. Reference 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.192.199 (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Read the FAQ. Meters (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

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

His age gap with his lastest wife

Why do western leaders have their and their wives age gaps ignored yet eastern leaders have theirs pointed out? We should add Trump’s age gap to his personal life to show fairness and equality in our edits to this website. 2600:1700:13C0:72E0:D07A:DA99:345C:BF06 (talk) 05:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The age gap isn't notable. If there's age gaps on other articles you think shouldn't be there you should raise it on those articles, not here. — Czello ^(music) 08:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

yet eastern leaders have theirs pointed out? Citation needed. Zaathras (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Beat 2 different Democratic Presidential nominees in 1 Election

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

---

Get ready to update this to "President Trump is the 45th and 47th President of the United States with the largest Electoral College victory in the entire history of the United States while also electing more Supreme Court Justices than any other President in US history." Enjoy CCP comrades, I mean "editors." 104.230.247.132 (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

We can't say this as A, Biden was not in fact a nominee. B, it has not happened yet. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Why is Wikipedia becoming becoming extreme left?

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

---

I was a lifetime Democrat. I should have left in 2008 when they did Kucinich dirty or when they handcuffed Stein and her VP, during the 2012 debate, for protesting about not being allowed to debate. But it wasn't until 2016 when I saw how the DNC manipulated the primary and cheated against Bernie and then Bernie sold out, that I left the evil empire following. I can now look back and see how they manipulated people into believing nonsense. I was a never Trumper. I voted for Jill in 2016. RFK Jr made me actually listen to what Trump said instead of listening to what the left said that Trump was saying. I felt like I took the red pill. Everything the left is doing is far more fascist than what Trump has ever done. They cut what he says and mistranslate for people as if they can't, or know, that people will not actually listen and think for themselves. Wikipedia is disgusting for lying to people. Grow a conscience and stop lying. 2600:8801:1280:B0E0:400E:44F:60F8:7F89 (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Biased biography

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

---

This biography is unbalanced and prejudiced against Mr Trump and should be removed and replaced with something more objective. 186.44.96.217 (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Assassination attempts in lead

Are we really not considering being the subject of two assassination attempts this year (one in which he was injured) worthy of mention in the lead section? Sorry if this has been previously discussed. StewdioMACK (talk) 09:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding the July 13 attempt to the lead was discussed here, no new reporting on it, AFAIK. The discussion about adding the September 15 incident to the body fizzled out the same as the media interest in it. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Is that July 13 discussion really a consensus not to include? Looks like there was plenty of people in there arguing to include it. StewdioMACK (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

edit issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is a reason it was the other way before: he was off camera. Anotherperson123 (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or does it mean that the victim believes that Trump's wealth, power, and influence means that he would not be punished and might even result in further bad experiences for themselves? Resignation is not consent. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM Anotherperson123 (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

2024 campaign rhetoric "The enemy within"

For consideration in the 2024 campaign subtopic.

Donald Trump has chillingly suggested sending the military or National Guard after US citizens on Election Day. The Independent 10-13-2024

Video from FOX News via Wall Street Journal 10-13-24

"Former President Donald Trump called Democrats and others who have opposed or investigated him "the enemy from within" in an interview that aired Sunday, describing them as more dangerous than major foreign adversaries of the United States, including Russia and China." NBC 10-13-2024

Trump has repeatedly used the "threat from within" label throughout his campaign to label his political opponents, a categorization that's drawn increased attention as Election Day nears. "The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous and grave than the threat from within," Trump said in that speech. "Our threat is from within." CBS 10-14-2024

In comments that further fueled fears of an authoritarian crackdown if he recaptures the White House, the Republican nominee said the military or national guard should be deployed against opponents that he called 'the enemy within' when the election takes place on 5 November. The Guardian 10-14-2024

But never before has a presidential nominee — let alone a former president — openly suggested turning the military on American citizens simply because they oppose his candidacy. NYT 10-15-2024

The dark comments highlight Trump's increasing bend toward authoritarian rhetoric in his third White House campaign, some political scientists told ABC News."It's really classic authoritarian discourse," said Steven Levitsky. ABC 10-15-24

Former President Trump doubled down on his insistence that his political rivals are “the enemy from within,” even after similar comments drew backlash and became a centerpiece of one of Vice President Harris’s campaign rallies. The Hill 10-16-2024

“I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within, not even the people that have come in and destroying our country." CNN 10-20-2024

For the third time in a week, former president Donald Trump repeated his charge that Democrats allied against him are 'the enemy from within' in an interview with Fox News during which he called the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol 'a beautiful thing'. WaPo 10-20-2024

Cheers. DN (talk) 06:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

"campaign rhetoric" so put it there, we have enough about his gobshitery already. Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm getting a mixed message here, though I understand why. If it is better left in the Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign#Authoritarian and antidemocratic statements, I'm fine with whatever the consensus here is. Cheers DN (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

BLPN section on denials by Trump

I started a section at BLPN regarding recent deletion of denials from this BLP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

BLPN post and replies for reference

This edit blatantly contradicts WP:BLP. It removes denials from the article despite policy which says, “If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too.” See WP:DENIALS. Instead of citing this policy, the edit cites an essay (WP:MANDY) which disagrees with the policy, and which also disagrees with a counter-essay (WP:NOTMANDY). This edit is not unusual at that particular BLP, but it seems worth bringing it up here every once in a while since insisting on BLP policy without support here is quite dangerous for an editor. Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC) No, that reversion does not contradict BLP. The subject doesn't deny saying those things; if he credibly did then the section you're quoting would apply. That he said them, though, is a matter of record and not in dispute. The characterization of those statements doesn't require documentation of his disagreement with that characterization: we care much more about what sources have to say about a subject than what subjects have to say about themselves. WP:MANDY wasn't a good counter-argument to use in the reversion since it doesn't apply here, either. Also, that talk page is well-attended and bringing it here with zero discussion there is not great. As prominently noted at the top of this page: Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. VQuakr (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC) We would need a source for these denials. Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC) Most look like they were in the sources that were removed save the first one. But I agree with Anything that Mandy is a terrible essay most of the time. PackMecEng (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Editor VQuakr responding at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard referred the discussion to this page. This is the content I reverted here (added and reverted content bolded by me): Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged, racist, and misogynistic, which he denies, and Many of Trump's comments and actions have been considered racist,[811][812][813] though not by him. "Apples and oranges" apparently wasn't a good way to say he didn't deny saying/doing what the RS reported/characterized. Quoting VQuakr: The subject doesn't deny saying those things; if he credibly did then the section you're quoting would apply. That he said them, though, is a matter of record and not in dispute. The characterization of those statements doesn't require documentation of his disagreement with that characterization: we care much more about what sources have to say about a subject than what subjects have to say about themselves. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

My point was "do RS support this edit", no as they do not say he has said the allegations have not been made. This (at maximum) needs re-wording so not to imply something that is false (he denies such allegations exist). Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Trump allegedly being Jeffrey Epstein's closest friend for 10 years

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

---

Hello.

My following edit was reverted.

https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=prev&diff=1255312828

Would it be acceptable to reinsert the information? David A (talk) 07:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Please understand that you may not reinstate your edit for at least 24 hours from the time of this talk page message, as it is a WP:CTOP article with specific WP:BRD restrictions. You may explain why you think it is DUE and provide other reasons you think are relevant. Cheers. DN (talk) 08:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

If there is a 1RR rule in place, I am not allowed to reinsert the information, but other members may, correct?

And it certainly seems relevant for the public to know the very extensive degree of Trump's apparent involvement with a child sex trafficker and pedophile, especially given how obsessed QAnon seems to be regarding Jeffrey Epstein. David A (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Also read wp:blp, Trump did know him, but that may not mean anything. Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The page is under standard WP:CTOP restrictions (24-hour BRD cycle if your edit is reverted); otherwise, WP:3RR (three reverts in a 24-hour period) applies. I think WP:BLP prevents us from adding the info. Epstein is not a reliable source, and he's the only source for the allegations. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Never mind then. David A (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

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

"Trump" redirect here

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

---

Trump should redirect here. He is best known as Trump. Nothing really else comes the popularity of him than anything else. Loveforwiki (talk) 05:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

This has been proposed and rejected before, but I suppose there's no hard rule against raising it again in the correct venue, if you have the time to waste. That venue would be Talk:Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 November 2024 (2)

This has way to many opinions on the former/future president 2601:840:4682:3950:95C7:E3A8:C355:74DC (talk) 08:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Nythar (💬-🍀) 08:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Specific change is DONAL J TRUMP President-Elect of the United States of America. Come January 21st 2025 DONALD J TRUMP 47th President of the United States of America. 2600:1700:36D0:9B0:F0D4:A31D:9626:5BEF (talk) 09:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Do not declare Trump the winner/loser of the 2024 presidential election until unanimous consensus is reached.

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

---

Trump may prematurely declare victory. On the Sunday of the election, the banner will be on the page. Per Talk:2024 United States presidential election, until there is unanimous consensus among reliable media sources that Trump has been projected to win/lose the 2024 presidential election, do not post any such claims in the lead or article. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, but isn't that what we've been doing since the 2004 election (as in the first election where Wikipedia was a thing)? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

And the sky is still blue. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

JohnAdams1800, please do not add the banner. This page has been a permanent "current event" since 2015, and banners were added repeatedly and promptly removed. Numerous editors are monitoring the page, and WP:NOTNEWS is standard practice. The banner is not needed. BTW, the election isn't on Sunday, it's on TUESDAY, November 5. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 09:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

We go by what RS say, Trump is not an RS (possibly not even for his own statements). Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

On the Sunday of the election Is this intentional disinformation? The American presidential election is set by statute as "the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November" Zaathras (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It’s probably in good faith, as most countries obviously schedule elections when people doesn’t have to go to work. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 08:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I understood that to mean "the Sunday immediately preceding election day". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

That interpretation works for me. Less-than-crystal-clear wording, but "intentional disinformation"? Disinformation to trick a few voters into trying to vote on the wrong day? Or not trying to vote on the right day? Seems a stretch, and a big one. Here's a spoonful of WP:AGF, which is about not making accusations of bad faith without clear evidence to support them.

Agree with Space4T: Any attempts to update prematurely will be dealt with in short order, and we won't need this banner to make that happen.

Maybe the section heading could be a lot shorter, next time? That helps in multiple ways. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

That was what I meant. Anyway, I won't add the banner, as the article is ECP and among the most monitored articles on Wikipedia. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Our 47th president

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

---

Time to get changing this article guys. Jjbomb (talk) 06:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

What's your hurry? The Associated Press hasn't called it yet. And there's nothing wrong with taking the time to do it right, which means talking about how to do it right. Any BOLD edits are likely to be challenged anyway, so why not skip that step? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Mandruss! The premature calling gives me flashbacks to Gore. 2601:280:5D01:D010:ADA6:3506:15FF:D881 (talk) 08:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 November 2024

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

---

45th and 47th President. Kartrod27! (talk) 07:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Edit requests must be in "change X to Y" format. Anyway, there is and will be plenty of other discussion about this on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

47th President of the United States of America

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

---

Donald Trump the 47th President of the United States of America. Who agrees to it? 2600:1700:36D0:9B0:F0D4:A31D:9626:5BEF (talk) 07:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

See other related discussion on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

[7] 2600:1700:36D0:9B0:F0D4:A31D:9626:5BEF (talk) 07:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

What were all our smear campaigns even for, fellow Wikipedians?! No, Donald Trump is not the 47th President of the United States of America... [--2804:24DC:D0:2757:D2A:7CED:483F:FABF (talk) 07:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)]

[8] 2600:1700:36D0:9B0:F0D4:A31D:9626:5BEF (talk) 07:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you read the headline of your own source. "Inches closer". We don't update this encyclopedia on the basis of "inches closer". ―Mandruss ☎ 07:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry. I should have said President-Elect, but come January 21st it will be DONALD J. TRUMP PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2600:1700:36D0:9B0:F0D4:A31D:9626:5BEF (talk) 08:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

He won't be the 47th president until Jan 20th. TFD (talk) 11:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Lead

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

---

FOX has called the election. Time to add it to the lead. Stanley Gordon (talk) 07:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

If only Fox had called it, then no. But others seem to have called it. Still not an unanimous consensus, though. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mandruss All good? Stanley Gordon (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Stanley Gordon: Getting there, thanks. Still need a new consensus to change the first sentence. Sorry for the bureaucracy and welcome to this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mandruss, After consensus is made, can this format of infobox on my sandbox be pasted ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 07:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

After consensus is made You mean consensus for that proposed change? Of course. That's what consensus is. I suggest you make the proposal in a separate section, for the sake of organization. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the page needs protection or at least semi-protection. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

"president-elect"

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

---

The article says that he is the president-elect, but AP has not called the race in his favor yet (at least as far as I know) and multiple states are still counting ballots. Even if he is projected to win, isn't it too soon to make this statement?

Unrefined Gasoline (talk) 08:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Change the picture of lead

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

---

I think lead needs a latest picture of Trump Loveforwiki (talk) 08:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

For politicians, Wikipedia uses the most recent official portrait. That will probably be produced some time after he takes office. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Request for 3 hour full protection

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

---

To line up with the full protection of 2024 United States presidential election while we wait for every source to report that Trump has won, I suggest placing 3 hour full protection for Trump, and maybe Harris and Vance. Unnamed anon (talk) 08:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

All sources now report Trump's victory, the short-term full protection that never came is no longer needed. Unnamed anon (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Seconded. He hasn't yet won the election according to the sources I'm looking at. I wouldn't support full protection if he gets to 270, unless the level of disruption gets too high. Nythar (💬-🍀) 08:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

In my view, the level of disruption has been too high for two hours. This is no way to run an encyclopedia. I'm giving up in frustration, surrendering to the mob, and going to bed. After all, it's only Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

And Fox News is being used as a source. I was under the impression that Fox is not considered reliable for politics per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. Nythar (💬-🍀) 08:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:RFPP. Knock yourself out. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

The main page should be updated to the 47th President-Elect

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

---

I don’t have the permission to update the main page of the President-Elect. Can someone who has the permissions to update the page of DONALD J TRUMP the 47th President of the United States of America to President-Elect? 2600:1700:36D0:9B0:F0D4:A31D:9626:5BEF (talk) 08:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Not until it's officially confirmed (which won't be far off now). — Czello ^(music) 09:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Fox News one of the most trusted sources of news in the United States of America has called the race for the 47th President-Elect of the United States of America? Why can’t the change be made? [9] 2600:1700:36D0:9B0:F0D4:A31D:9626:5BEF (talk) 09:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Fox News is most certainly not one of the most trusted sources of news – see WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS — Czello ^(music) 09:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

NOTICE: Extremely likely to be president-elect very, very soon ≠ President-elect ≠ President — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 09:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Not confirmed, although likely to be soon. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 09:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 November 2024 (3)

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

---

Donald Trump is the Current President 2603:7000:723F:66BB:AD8E:D064:960E:BD9D (talk) 09:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done To borrow from a fellow editor, NOTICE: Extremely likely to be president-elect very, very soon ≠ President-elect ≠ President. Please provide a source for your request on Mr. Trump being the president-elect if you make a new request or update this one. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Here is one of the most trusted news organizations in the US.[10]. 2600:1700:36D0:9B0:F0D4:A31D:9626:5BEF (talk) 09:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

No. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 09:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Sooner or later it has to be changed to DONALD J TRUMP the 47th President-Elect of the United States of America and come January 21st the 47th President of the United States of America. Clearly Fox News is a reliable source whether you like it or not.[11] 2600:1700:36D0:9B0:F0D4:A31D:9626:5BEF (talk) 09:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Given that Trump doesn't yet have 270, no matter how inevitable it is, this demonstrates why we don't use Fox News. Yes, it's likely to change soon: but until he hits 270, he's not the president-elect. — Czello ^(music) 09:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Clearly the US voters have elected DONALD J TRUMP as their president whether you like it or not. [12] 2600:1700:36D0:9B0:F0D4:A31D:9626:5BEF (talk) 09:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Re-read my comment please. — Czello ^(music) 09:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Since it is my fault for not being clearer in my first comment, I will note that related articles are waiting for the combined result from ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, and NBC per a consensus elsewhere. I am unsure if there is a similar consensus here, but can you wait until at least one of those declares Trump the president-elect before updating this request? --Super Goku V (talk) 09:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Fox News one of the most trusted news channels in the United States of America has called the race for Donald J Trump, so I don’t understand the hesitation. [13] 2600:1700:36D0:9B0:F0D4:A31D:9626:5BEF (talk) 09:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Because WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. You are right that it's "trusted", but it's not reliable. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

He may (MAY) be president-elect, but he is not p[r4esisent till he is sworn in. Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 November 2024 (4)

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

---

Please change he served as the 45th and the current 47th President of the United States. 31.113.20.110 (talk) 10:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

 Resolved Not a current president, but the president-elect. Article has been updated to note that he is the president-elect, which should resolve this request. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Infobox and lead officially needs to change now

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

---

Per AP News, Trump officially won 277 electoral votes, and BBC News says 279 electoral votes, of the 270 votes needed to win. Meaning he officially won the election with opponent Kamala Harris with 224 electoral votes. Infobox should mention "president-elect of the United States". MAL MALDIVE (talk) 10:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

And in case a totally unbiased editor wants to make the case that the AP isn't enough:

CNN - https://edition.cnn.com/election/2024/results/president

NBC - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/live-blog/presidential-election-2024-live-updates-rcna175556

ABC - https://abcnews.go.com/Elections/2024-us-presidential-election-results-live-map

CBS - https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/election-results-2024/ Luminism (talk) 10:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Luminism Exactly, ABC News also says 279 electoral votes. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

They've all called it, which is what we've been waiting for. AP lagged behind, hence why we did - it has nothing to do with bias. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 10:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 November 2024 (5)

Hi there. I've looked at the old articles for Joe Biden when he was president-elect and saw that the "president-elect" label was added after his profession. (It said Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. is an American politician and the president-elect of the United States. ). Maybe change it for Trump's too for consistency? Thank you. VyacheslavLovedCampaignTrips (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Not done – please clarify - can you put this in a change X to Y format? DarmaniLink (talk) 10:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I don't think this would matter now since the profession phrase thingy changed to what I had originally meant, thank you. VyacheslavLovedCampaignTrips (talk) 11:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 November 2024 (6)

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

---

Trumpisnotcool (talk) 10:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Donald trump is the newly appointed president of america in 2024-2028

He is not appointed until he is sworn in. Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Also presidents are not appointed, they are elected; and his term will be 2025-2029. Basically nothing about this edit is accurate. 24.230.161.142 (talk) 14:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 November 2024 (7)

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

---

Timo k matester15 (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Put Trump as president elect

See umpteen thread above. Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 November 2024 (8)

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

---

Add that Trump is the President Elect. Jas3nEtr0g (talk) 11:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

See umpteen thread above. Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Dude, it was added like an hour before you even requested this Luminism (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 November 2024 (8)

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

---

Remove the leftist bias 2600:1700:3A20:D7E0:A0A1:F9C2:C66C:F351 (talk) 11:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

We can't action this, as it is too imprecise. Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Please be specific Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

A lead rewrite to not have it sound like it was written by an Antifa member would be a start but thats just me. --FMSky (talk) 11:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@FMSky: even though I wasn't happy that Trump was elected in 2016, I absolutely agree with you; the lead section of this article isn't presentable, it seems like an attack on him. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

That is not specific, it is still vague. Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Another thing would probably to expand the assassionation paragraph. "He was grazed in the ear, he didn't release medical records" aint it, people were killed that day --FMSky (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

It ain't what? And this is about him, not the assassination (that is a separate article). Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Archiving?

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

---

Once some of these recent discussions finish regarding his election to President of the United States, is there any way we could clear the page up a bit by archiving the discussions? DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 11:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Consensus #13 applies. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Donald Trump is a loser, a liar and a cheat, that's the truth!

Trump is president

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

---

Someone change this because he is president. 24.72.67.7 (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

See umpteen threads above. Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Wikilink to be added

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

---

In the paragraph "Presidential transition" a wikilink to Grover Cleveland is to be added. Creatoreoccasionale (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Has been added by somebody. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Election

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

---

He is now the 45th and 47th president 64.20.139.194 (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

See umpteen thread above. Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 November 2024 (9)

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

---

Donald Trump has been elected to be the 47th President of these United States Durpy shark (talk) 15:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

See umpteen thread above. Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

 Already done – Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Add that hes the new elected president

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

---

He is now the 47th president of the united states of america. 132.147.140.229 (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

See umpteen thread above. Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 November 2024 (10)

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

---

Fix the whatever the long "47th President-elect" means. Shouldn't it max Grover Cleveland. 2603:6011:D0F0:73F0:C0F4:3C75:4565:B0E6 (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Becasue that is what Trump is. Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

He's not the 47th president-elect. The presidents who succeeded from the vice presidency by death or resignation of the president were never president-elect. Certainly not the ones who were not elected in their own right. Wehwalt (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Ahh I see, I think the issue is that the concept doers not really work. So OK maybe just president ellect. Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Small typo in lead

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

---

The lead uses "they" instead of "the" when referring to the fact that Trump is the only president without military time. 2600:100B:B117:FD37:9148:7C3E:9A24:484D (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

It's so small, I can't see it. How about a complete quote. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Semantics

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

---

Currently, the article says:

He became the second president in U.S. history to serve non-consecutive terms after former president Grover Cleveland

However, Trump has not begun to serve his second term, so the statement is not yet true. 675930s (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Grover Cleveland

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

---

Should Grover Cleveland be mentioned in the opening paragraph? As in,

He served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021, and is set to serve as the 47th president after being re-elected in 2024, making him the second U.S. president to serve non-consecutive presidential terms, after Grover Cleveland.

Personally, it seems trivial, although it certainly has precedent Juyenxo (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it really shouldn't. All this part seems like superflous detail for the lead, especially since there is now a disclaimer urging editors to shorten the lead further.

"becoming the first former president since Grover Cleveland in 1892 to win a non-consecutive second term and the first Republican presidential candidate since 2004 projected to win the popular vote. Aged 78 at the time of the election, he also became the oldest person to be elected President of the United States."

Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Error in dating of Trump's presidency - 20 Jan 2024 to Jan 20 2021

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

---

I'm not sure why this error exists, but apparently Trump first served as president from 20 January 2024 to January 20 2021, when it should be January 20, 2017 to January 20, 2021. 49.47.3.166 (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Where do we say this? Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

"47th president-elect"

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

---

Aside from the question of whether he is already the president-elect, I don't believe he should be considered the 47th president-elect. Presidents who took office after serving as vice president, such as Gerald Ford, John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, and Chester A. Arthur were never president-elect. I'm not certain of the exact number of president-elects, but it is surely lower than 47. Hektor (talk) 08:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I assume people are reading that as 47th president-elect. But there's no shortage of precedents to look at, if I weren't so worn out. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Clarification

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

---

Why does his intro bio say he's the second president to be elected non consecutive terms but the election hasn't even been announced...? 2601:280:5D01:D010:ADA6:3506:15FF:D881 (talk) 08:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@2601:280:5D01:D010:ADA6:3506:15FF:D881

I don't know. I really don't think that edit should have been made since AP hasn't even called the race yet. I'm not sure why it's still up there.

Unrefined Gasoline (talk) 08:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks like part of it has been removed.

"On November 5, 2024, Trump defeated incumbent Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election and secured a second non-consecutive term as president alongside running mate JD Vance. This is set to make him the first convicted felon to serve as president of the United States." is still up. 2601:280:5D01:D010:ADA6:3506:15FF:D881 (talk) 08:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Non-Consecutive Terms

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

---

Probably should note somewhere that he will be only the 2nd US president to be elected to non-consecutive terms of office. See Grover Cleveland. -Ad Orientem (talk) 08:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

AP calls Pennsylvania for Donald Trump

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

---

If (likely when) Trump wins the election, how would y'all want to format his infobox? WorldMappings (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Probably like Grover Cleveland's. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Hold that thought, after we have the call of FOX, CNN, MSNBC, AP and CBS, ABC, we will proceed with formatting. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 07:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Not like Grover's until the inauguration. Until then, I don't know what we've done in other cases. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

After Grover Cleveland, not Herbert hoover

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

---

He is the second non-consecutive after Cleveland, not Herbert Hoover. Wikentromere (talk) 06:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Updated Portrait

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

---

He needs an updated portrait to reflect recent times. Check this one:[14]https://ibb.co/HByYxYd] 2601:483:400:1CD0:39C:2DA6:E78B:139C (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

We'll wait for the new official portrait sometimes in 2025. Zaathras (talk) 02:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

is that a free-use or public domain image? Nobody gon' be clicking on random links, IP. those could be spam or malware. BarntToust 02:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Can we reverse the dictator part

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

---

Not necessarily a trump fan, but why is he listed as a dictator? This is clear bias and should be reversed 98.179.80.173 (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

That was vandalism and was removed in short order. You don't need to come here with things like that. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2024

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

---

Donald Trump is not the U.S.'s first dictator. The term dictator is for someone who has complete control of an area or country. There is still a democracy in the U.S. I do not believe he has ever called himself a dictator, and if so, sources should be cited. 2601:246:CC80:FE10:9029:92A6:C0B6:4521 (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Wait, that has been added to the page? Where? Because I don't think it should be there. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

That was a momentary edit that has already been reversed. Zaathras (talk) 02:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Can we reverse the dictator part

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

---

Not necessarily a trump fan, but why is he listed as a dictator? This is clear bias and should be reversed 98.179.80.173 (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

That was vandalism and was removed in short order. You don't need to come here with things like that. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Dictator?

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

---

I understand that some people may be upset by Trump winning the presidential election in 2024, but defining him as "the first Dictator of the United States" is simply untrue, unprofessional, and ridiculous. I donate a significant amount of money to Wikipedia and enjoy the ability to read unbiased truths about people and topics. Let's keep biases and our own political views out of what are supposed to be factual pages. Please fix this egregious error. WPR IRE (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

That was vandalism and was removed in short order. You don't need to come here with things like that. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

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

(Large) lack of references

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

---

The paragraphs before the dropdowns have little to no references when talking about things he supposedly did, or when talking about ways he reacted to things while in office from 2016-2024. Shouldn't sources and references be added? It makes the article appear a little less credible Benjaminfor9days (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

No idea what a dropdown is. If you're referring to the article's lead, we generally omit citations there for the sake of readability. Citations can be found in the related body content. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Dropdowns probably refer to MinervaNeue (the mobile skin) which closes each section within dropdowns, and before the dropdowns would be the lead, yes. Cessaune [talk] 02:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Okie. Closing because this has been adequately discussed in the past. Disclaimer: I'm being unusually aggressive with the closures for what should be obvious reasons. We really need to get this page's table of contents back down to a manageable size, and, per consensus 13, that means closing a lot of things. Under normal circumstances, we'd just let something like this age for 14 days until auto-archive. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Curious about adding just a small detail about his presidency

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

---

Can we add that, being the second US president to serve two non consecutive terms, the only other was Grover Cleveland? Nathan.morris90 (talk) 05:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Already in the article, twice. As a footnote at the end of the lead, and again in body prose. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

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

WP:CRYSTAL

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

---

"when [rather than if] he takes office in 2025" is WP:CRYSTAL. 1) We have no way of knowing that he is even alive in 2025 (he is nearly eighty years old). 2) He has not yet been elected, there are concerns about his eligibility, due to his insurrection. He might be in prison at the time. Etc. etc. --Tataral (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

That looks like wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL says, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Trump is almost certain to become the next president, barring a coup. TFD (talk) 11:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, it's not WP:CRYSTAL. Anyways, the lead is likely to be changed multiple times by multiple editors, over the next few hours (let alone days). So no huge worries. GoodDay (talk) 11:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Regarding current consensus item 10

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

---

Consensus 10 says the following: Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016) Canceled: Barron's BLP has existed since June 2019. (June 2024) However, the link is a redirect to Family of Donald Trump and has been since June 11th per AfD's redirect. Should consensus 10 be restored or is it fine the way it is? --Super Goku V (talk) 10:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Fine the way it is, since restoring it would have no effect. It was needed at one time because there was some disagreement about whether he should be in that list (see linked discussions). Now there isn't any such disagreement, and I don't anticipate any. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah. Gotcha and understood. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Update Thumbnail/ Portrait

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

---

The thumbnail/ portrait for this page is severely outdated. It should feature a photograph that accurately portrays his current appearance. Stisoulreaper (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

For politicians, Wikipedia uses the most recent official portrait. A new one is expected after he takes office. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2024 (2)

When the President-Elect takes office, format like this... 50.235.180.174 (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

| order = 45th and 47th

| office = President of the United States

| vicepresident = JD Vance

| term_start = January 20, 2025

| preceded = Joe Biden

| vicepresident1 = Mike Pence

| term_start1 = January 20, 2017

| term_end1 = January 20, 2021

| predecessor1 = Barack Obama 50.235.180.174 (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

We will, there is no need to ask us. Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Merging 45th & 47th President Office Holder Titles

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

---

Once Trump is inaugurated, the 45th and 47th President Office Holder titles should be merged, as they are the same office, simply displaced by a period of time. This would align with the standard used for Grover Cleveland, the last U.S. President to hold office for two non-successive terms. Poly553 (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree. WorldMappings (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

We will do that, see Grover Cleveland's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Infobox

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

---

Idk if this has been discussed but Grover Cleveland's infobox has both terms in one section but Trump's has 2 separate sections for each term. GamerKlim9716 (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Grover Cleveland has been discussed to death (does your platform not provide any way to search a page?). Until Trump's second inauguration, it's apples and oranges. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Info box format

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

---

I think the info box should be formatted similar to that of the Grover Cleveland Wikipedia article. In other words “45th and 47th President of the United States” on one line instead of two separate “45th President” and “47th President”. 2604:3D09:982:A200:C827:910D:3BFE:B6E9 (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Grover Cleveland has already been inaugurated for his second term. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

This would be the most logical thing to do. When the time comes in January. 2620:6D:C000:1001:998:9E3B:C426:265B (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Housekeeping

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

---

Does anyone have any objection to us removing the superseded/cancelled consensus items from the top of the page, if we don't reuse the numbers? Imo will make it much easier to keep track of what the current consensus is right now. Riposte97 (talk) 08:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Feels like only yesterday since we've had this discussion and since I wrote that it feels like only yesterday since we've had this discussion: discussion closed July 29, discussion closed April 9. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Settled issue. Twice. No significant new argument(s), and there is no "external situation" (external to Wikipedia) that could change, significantly or otherwise. Not 100% rhetorical: Do we need a consensus list item about this? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2024 (3)

I would like edit this page to prevent and remove conservative or liberal influence or bias from the page. Editing1010 (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)